JUDGEMENT SANJEEV KUMAR, J. 1. This intra Court appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court ["Writ Court"] dated 02.11.2019 passed in SWP No. 2715/2002 titled Sunil Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein ["writ petitioner"] seeking quashment of the order passed by respondent No. 3, dismissing the writ petitioner from service w.e.f. 05.05.2001, has been dismissed. 2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we find it necessary to give brief resume of the factual antecedents leading to the filing of this appeal. 3. The writ petitioner was appointed as Constable in 71 Bn. Border Security Force on 28.05.1990. He proceeded on leave w.e.f. 06.06.2000 to 04.08.2000 to attend his ailing wife. On request, the leave was extended upto 03.10.2000. The writ petitioner claims that he applied for extension of leave, as his wife was not fully recovered, however, the same was not granted by the respondents and consequently, the writ petition was recorded absent w.e.f. 04.10.2000 to 04.02.2001. The writ petitioner, as is claimed by him, reported for duty accompanied by his wife on 05.02.2001. He was permitted to resume his duties. On 09.02.2001, the writ petitioner again abandoned his duties and left for home along with his wife. This, the writ petitioner submits, was necessitated because of a serious medical condition of his wife. The writ petitioner claims that he took his wife first to Civil Hospital on 10.02.2001 from where she was referred to Gandhidham Hospital in Gujarat for specialized treatment and later shifted to Government Medial College, Jammu. The writ petitioner reported back for duty at Gandhidham in Gujarat on 15.04.2001. He was arrested and a Summary Security Force Court was ordered by respondent No. 3. The writ petitioner was tried by the Summary Security Force Court ["SSFC"], which pronounced sentence of dismissing the petitioner from service. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Director General, Border Security Force but the same also came to be dismissed on 12.08.2002. It is in these circumstances, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition before the Writ Court claiming inter alia quashment of order of his dismissal from service and a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service w.e.f. 05.05.2001. It is in these circumstances, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition before the Writ Court claiming inter alia quashment of order of his dismissal from service and a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service w.e.f. 05.05.2001. The decision of the SSFC was challenged before the Writ Court inter alia on the ground that trial of the writ petitioner was conducted in breach of Rule 63, 134, 157 and 166 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 ["the Rules"]. It was the grouse of the writ petitioner that never during trial or thereafter he was given a fair opportunity to defend and that the 'plea of guilty' was erroneously recorded, though, no such plea had been made by the writ petitioner at any point of time. 5. On being put on notice, the respondents filed their objections. In the objections, it was averred that on first occasion the writ petitioner overstayed leave for 61 days and thereafter he remained absent without leave for 43 days and 189 days respectively on two occasions. The period of absence of 43 days w.e.f. 18.01.1992 to 29.02.1992 was regularized by granting him 36 days earned leave and 07 days HPL. Even absence without leave for 189 days was regularized by treating the said period as 'dies non'. The aforesaid leave for 61 days w.e.f. 08.02.1999 to 09.04.1999 was also regularized by granting 61 days earned leave to the writ petitioner. It is, thus, submitted that the writ petitioner was habitual of absenting from service without leave. In the year 2000 also when the writ petitioner proceeded on 60 days earned leave w.e.f. 06.06.2000 to 04.08.2000, on humanitarian ground his earned leave was extended twice by 30 days each. He was, thus, required to resume his duty on 04.10.2000 forenoon but the writ petitioner chose not to join his duty even after expiry of the extended period of leave. 6. Having regard to the conduct of the writ petitioner, a Court of Inquiry was instituted under Section 62 of the Security Force Act, 1968 ["the Act"] to inquire about the unauthorized absence of the writ petitioner and to find out deficiency, if any, in the property of the Government entrusted to the care of the writ petitioner. The Inquiry was completed and Apprehension Roll was issued to the writ petitioner on 25.12.2000. The Inquiry was completed and Apprehension Roll was issued to the writ petitioner on 25.12.2000. He, however, voluntarily reported at Battalion Headquarter on 05.02.2001 forenoon after overstaying leave by 124 days. Within five days, when the unit was busy in massive civic relief work for earthquake victims in addition to operational duties, the writ petitioner again, on 10.02.2001, deserted the unit lines without leave/permission. An FIR to his effect was lodged with Officer Commanding on 12.02.2001 and also addressed to Superintendent of Police, Jammu with copy endorsed to S.H.O. of the Police Station concerned. Three registered letters were sent to the home address of the writ petitioner by the respondents directing him to report Battalion Headquarters forthwith. The writ petitioner did not respond to the directions of respondent No. 3 and remained absent without any leave. 7. It is averred by the respondents that the writ petitioner instead of responding to the letters of respondent No. 3 made a complaint directly to the Director General, BSF alleging that respondent No. 3 was causing harassment to him. The matter was inquired into by the Frontier Headquarter and the allegations leveled by the writ petitioner against respondent No. 3 and the administration were found baseless. When the absence period of the writ petitioner crossed 30 days, a Court of Inquiry was instituted under Section 62 of the Act to inquire into the absence of the writ petitioner. In the meanwhile, the writ petitioner voluntarily reported at Battalion Headquarter on 15.04.2001 after AWL of 65 days. The Court of Inquiry was completed on 23.04.2001, which recommended 'strict disciplinary action' against the writ petitioner under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Upon joining of the writ petitioner for duty at Battalion Headquarters, the writ petitioner was brought before the Commandant for hearing on offence report under Rule 45 of the Rules for committing offence under Section 19(a) and 19(b) of the Act. The Commandant after providing hearing to the writ petitioner ordered for 'Record of Evidence'. On completion of 'Record of Evidence' and after going through the same, the Commandant decided to try the accused by Summary Security Force Court. Trial of the writ petitioner by the SSFC was conducted on 05.05.2001 and the writ petitioner was sentenced "to be dismissed from service". On completion of 'Record of Evidence' and after going through the same, the Commandant decided to try the accused by Summary Security Force Court. Trial of the writ petitioner by the SSFC was conducted on 05.05.2001 and the writ petitioner was sentenced "to be dismissed from service". The writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Director General, Border Security Force against the order of his dismissal but the same, too, was dismissed by the Director General, BSF. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, it is evident that the writ petitioner, having been tried by the SSFC on the charges framed against him under Section 19(a) and 19(b) of the Act, has been found guilty of both the charges and has been sentenced to "dismissal from service". 9. It is true and as is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that a person subject to the Act, who commits any of the offences enumerated in Section 19 including that he absents himself without leave; or overstays leave granted to him without sufficient cause shall, on conviction by the Summary Security Force Court, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or such less punishment as in the Act mentioned. Relevant extract of Section 19, which is relevant for our purpose is reproduced hereunder:- "19. Absence without leave.- Any person subject to this Act who commits any of the following offences, that is to say,--- (a) Absents himself without leave; or (b) Without sufficient cause overstays leave granted to him; or (c) ................................. (d) ................................. (e) ................................. (f) .................................. (g) ................................. Shall, on conviction by a Security Force Court, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned." This Section, however, cannot be read in isolation, more so when it clearly provides that the Summary Security Force Court shall, on conviction of the accused, sentence him to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or such less punishment as is in the Act mentioned. This will take us to Section 48 of the Act, which prescribes the punishments that can be awarded by the Summary Security Force Courts. This will take us to Section 48 of the Act, which prescribes the punishments that can be awarded by the Summary Security Force Courts. Before we proceed, we would like to clarify that Security Force Court, as is defined in Section 2(1)(u) of the Act means a Court referred to in Section 64 of the Act. Section 64 of the Act enumerates three kinds of Security Force Courts i.e. (i) General Security Force Court; (ii) Petty Security Force Court; and (iii) Summary Security Force Court. Before we proceed, we find it relevant to set out Section 48 and 49 of the Act herein below:- "48. Punishments awardable by Security Force Courts.--(1) Punishments may be inflicted in respect of offences committed by persons subject to this Act and convicted by Security Force Courts according to the scale following, that is to say,- (a) death; (b) imprisonment which may be for the term of life or any other lesser term but excluding imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months in Force custody; (c) dismissal from the service; (d) imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months in Force custody; (e) reduction to the ranks or to a lower rank or grade or place in the list of their rank in the case of an under-officer; (f) forfeiture of seniority of rank and forfeiture of all or any part of the service for the purpose of promotion; (g) forfeiture of service for the purpose of increased pay, pension or any other prescribed purpose; (h) fine, in respect of civil offences; (i) severe reprimand or reprimand except in the case of persons below the rank of an under-officer; (j) forfeiture of pay and allowances for a period not exceeding three months for an offence committed on active duty; (k) forfeiture in the case of person sentenced to dismissal from the service of all arrears of pay and allowances and other public money due to him at the time of such dismissal; (l) stoppage of pay and allowances until any proved loss or damage occasioned by the offence for which he is convicted is made good. (2) Each of the punishments specified in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be inferior in degree to every punishment preceding it in the above scale. 49. (2) Each of the punishments specified in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be inferior in degree to every punishment preceding it in the above scale. 49. Alternative punishments awardable by Security Force Courts.- Subject to the provisions of this Act, a Security Force Court may, on convicting a person subject to this Act of any of the offences specified in sections 14 to 45 (both inclusive) award either the particular punishment with which the offence is stated in the said sections to be punishable or, in lieu thereof, any one of the punishments lower in the scale set out in section 48 regard being had to the nature and degree of the offence." 10. From a reading of Sections 48 and 49 of the Act, it is clear that Security Force Courts are empowered to inflict various punishments mentioned in Section 48 of the Act, which include the sentence of "dismissal from service". As is evident from a reading of Section 48 of the Act, punishments awardable for offence under Section 19 of the Act is higher in degree to the punishment of "dismissal from service", in that, imprisonment which may extend to three years is comprehended by Clause (b) whereas punishment of "dismissal from service" is indicated at Clause (c). In view of the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 48 of the Act, the punishment of "dismissal from service" is inferior in degree to the punishments preceding it i.e. punishments mentioned in Clause (a) and (b) of Section 48. Section 49 makes it further evident that a Security Force Court may, on convicting a person subject to the Act for any of the offences specified in Section 14 to 45 (both inclusive), which would definitely include Section 19, award either the particular punishment provided for the offence in the said Section or in lieu thereof any of the punishments lower in the scale set out in Section 48. The Security Force Court is, thus, within its power and jurisdiction to award punishment, which is lesser or inferior in degree to the punishment that could be awarded under the Section to which the offence committed by the person subject to the Act is relatable. 11. The Security Force Court is, thus, within its power and jurisdiction to award punishment, which is lesser or inferior in degree to the punishment that could be awarded under the Section to which the offence committed by the person subject to the Act is relatable. 11. In the instant case, indisputably, the punishment provided for commission of offence under Section 19 is imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years but nothing prevents the Security Force Court to inflict a punishment which is inferior in degree to the aforesaid punishment. In the instant case, the respondent i.e. Summary Security Force Court has awarded alternative punishment lower in the scale set out in Section 48 and instead of sentencing the writ petitioner to suffer imprisonment under Section 19 of the Act has awarded the punishment of "dismissal from service", which, as explained above, is inferior to the punishment prescribed under Section 19 of the Act. 12. The aforesaid position becomes abundantly clear from a systematic reading of Section 19 with Sections 48 and 49 of the Act. We, therefore, reject the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the Summary Security Force Court, which tried the writ petitioner could, on conviction by it, have only inflicted the sentence of imprisonment as prescribed under Section 19 of the Act and, therefore, the sentence of "dismissal from service" is bad in the eye of law. 13. Equally untenable is the argument of learned counsel for the writ petitioner that in terms of Section 11 of the Act read with Rule 22 of the Rules, the services of the writ petitioner could not have been terminated without the competent authority recording reasons in writing that the trial of the writ petitioner was inexpedient and impracticable as also without arriving at the opinion that his further retention in the service was undesirable. The complaint of the writ petitioner is that Section 11 and Rule 22 were not complied with before imposing penalty of "dismissal from service" upon the writ petitioner. Having gone through the record and also clear stand taken by the respondents, Section 19 of the Act read with Rule 22 of the Rules were not attracted in the instant case. 14. Having gone through the record and also clear stand taken by the respondents, Section 19 of the Act read with Rule 22 of the Rules were not attracted in the instant case. 14. Indisputably, after the offence report was lodged before the competent authority that the writ petitioner has committed offence punishable under the Act, the competent authority i.e. Commandant of the writ petitioner after having dealt with the matter under Rules 44 and 45 remanded the writ petitioner for preparing 'Record of Evidence'. The officer, namely, Bhanwar Singh, Dy. Commandant was detailed to prepare 'Record of Evidence' in terms of Rule 48 of the Rules and it is only after going through the 'Record of Evidence', which was indisputably recorded in the presence of the writ petitioner and after associating him in the proceedings, a decision was taken to put the writ petitioner on trial by Summary Security Force Court. Summary Security Force Court convened by the Commandant and presided over by him, served upon the writ petitioner two charges referable to Section 19(a) and 19(b) of the Act. As per the respondents, the writ petitioner pleaded guilty to both the charges and prayed for taking a lenient view in the matter of punishment. The Summary Security Force Court without conducting any further proceedings and relying on the 'plea of guilty' to both the charges made by the writ petitioner pronounced the sentence i.e. sentence of "dismissal from service". As already indicated, "dismissal from service" is one of the punishments that can be awarded by the Security Force Courts for commission of various offences including the offences under Section 19 of the Act. 15. In the instant case, services of the writ petitioner have been terminated by way of sentence awarded by the Summary Security Force Court under Section 19 read with Section 45 of the Act and, therefore, the procedure provided under Rule 22 of the Rules, which is referable to Section 11 was not required to be followed. Section 11 read with Rule 22 would come into play when a person subject to the Act is to be dismissed or removed consequent upon a disciplinary inquiry into his misconduct and not by way of punishment awarded for commission of an offence under the Act. 16. Section 11 read with Rule 22 would come into play when a person subject to the Act is to be dismissed or removed consequent upon a disciplinary inquiry into his misconduct and not by way of punishment awarded for commission of an offence under the Act. 16. Viewed, thus, the only question that begs determination in the given facts and circumstances of the case is whether the writ petitioner has been tried by the Summary Security Force Court fairly and in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Rules. As is indicated above and is reiterated that in the instant case, the findings of Summary Security Force Court recorded against the writ petitioner are not based on any evidence recorded during trial by the Summary Security Force Court. The writ petitioner has been held guilty of charges solely on the 'plea of guilty' made by the writ petitioner and recorded by the SSFC. This brings us to scrutinize the manner in which the 'plea of guilty' of the writ petitioner has been recorded by the SSFC. 17. We are aware that the High Court exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not sit over the judgment or order of the domestic tribunals or Security Force Courts as an appellate authority. The jurisdiction of this Court is circumscribed and confined only to the correction of procedural errors or errors of law, which may have resulted in manifest miscarriage of justice. This Court may also interfere where the order of sentence passed by the Security Force Court is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court in the case of [1]S.R. Tewari v. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 6 SCC 602 , has reiterated the law in the following terms:- “The role of the court in the matter of departmental proceedings is very limited and the court cannot substitute its own views or findings by replacing the findings arrived at by the authority on detailed appreciation of the evidence on record. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review...........” 18. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review...........” 18. Shorn of other untenable arguments made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, we, in the instant case, are inclined to examine the manner in which the alleged 'plea of guilty' has been recorded by the Summary Security Force Court for awarding punishment of ' dismissal from service' upon the writ petitioner. 19. The scrutiny is limited only to find out as to whether because of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Rule 142 of the Rules, right of fair trial guaranteed to the writ petitioner not only under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder but also under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated. Rule 142 of the Rules lays down elaborate procedure for recording the 'plea of guilty' or 'not guilty' and, therefore, it is necessary to set out Rule 142 of the Rules herein below:- "142. General plea of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty".- (1) The accused person's plea of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" (or if he refuses to plead or does not plead intelligibly either one or the other), a plea of "Not Guilty" shall be recorded on each charge. (2) If an accused person pleads "Guilty", that plea shall be recorded as the finding of the Court but before it is recorded, the Court shall ascertain that the accused understands the nature of the charge to which he has pleaded guilty and shall inform him of the general effect of that plea, and in particular of the meaning of the charge to which he has pleaded guilty, and of the difference in procedure which will be made by the plea of guilty and shall advise him to withdraw that plea if it appears from the record or abstract of evidence (if any) or otherwise that the accused ought to plead not guilty: Provided that after recording plea of guilty, signature of the accused and friend of the accused shall be obtained. (3) Where an accused person pleads guilty to the first two or more charges laid in the alternative, the Court may after sub-rule (2) has been complied with and before the accused is arraigned on the alternative charge or charges, withdraw such alternative charge or charges as follow the charge to which the accused has pleaded guilty without requiring the accused to plea thereto, and a record to that effect shall be made in the proceedings of the Court." 20. From a reading of Rule 142 of the Rules, it is abundantly clear that the procedure that is required to be followed and the manner in which the "plea of guilty" or "not guilty" is to be recorded is mandatory in nature lest in the event of breach the trial would be vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice. The Rule lays down following steps to be followed:- i) Plea of "guilty" or "not guilty" shall be recorded on each charge. If the accused refuses to plead or does not plead intelligibly "guilty" or "not guilty", a plea of "not guilty" shall be recorded on each charge. ii) If an accused person pleads "Guilty" the plea shall be recorded by the Court as the finding of the Court. iii) Before recording such plea of "guilty" the Court shall ascertain that the accused understands the nature of the charge to which he has pleaded guilty. iv) The accused shall also be informed by the Court of the general effects of making plea of "guilty". He should be made aware of the meaning of the charge to which he has pleaded "guilty" and of the difference in procedure which will be followed consequent upon such plea. v) The Court shall also advise the accused making plea of "guilty" to withdraw such plea where the Court is of the opinion based upon the record or abstract of evidence, if any, or otherwise that the accused ought to plead not guilty. vi) That after recording plea of "guilty", signatures of the accused and the friend of the accused shall be obtained. (This was, however, added by way of an amendment made in Rule 142 of the Rules by S.O. 2628(E), dated 25.11.2011.) 21. In light of the procedure provided in Rule 142 of the Rules, when we examine the original record produced by Mr. (This was, however, added by way of an amendment made in Rule 142 of the Rules by S.O. 2628(E), dated 25.11.2011.) 21. In light of the procedure provided in Rule 142 of the Rules, when we examine the original record produced by Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI, we find that the 'plea of guilty' recorded by the SSFC is not in consonance with law and has occasioned serious miscarriage of justice. The writ petitioner has been inflicted a major penalty of "dismissal from service" without holding proper trial. The writ petitioner, as is evident from the original record, appears to have appeared before the Court along with his friend appointed by the respondents, namely, Sh. D.S. Samyal, Deputy Commandant. The charge-sheet was read over and explained to the writ petitioner and he was put four questions. Question No. 1 was in respect of charge No.1 to which the writ petitioner answered "guilty". Similarly, to the question No. 2, which was in respect of charge No. 2, the writ petitioner answered "guilty". It seems that without first explaining the writ petitioner the meaning of the charges to which he allegedly pleaded guilty and without making him aware of the general effects of that plea and difference in the procedure that will be followed consequent upon such plea, the Court recorded in proceedings the "plea of guilty" allegedly made by the writ petitioner. Neither the writ petitioner nor his friend appointed by the respondents has acknowledged the plea and put their signatures in lieu thereof. 22. It is true that as per Rule 142 of the Rules, as it stood on 01.05.2001, signatures of the accused were not required on the "plea of guilty" but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, when the writ petitioner has all along maintained that he was not guilty of the charges and remained absent from duty due to the reasons beyond his control, the Court should have been more careful while recording the "plea of guilty" and should have done well to obtain signatures of the writ petitioner as also friend of the writ petitioner appointed by the respondents to defend him. In the offence report the writ petitioner has clearly denied the charges, which ultimately became subject matter of trial before the SSFC. In the offence report the writ petitioner has clearly denied the charges, which ultimately became subject matter of trial before the SSFC. In his statutory appeal made to the Director General of Police, Border Security Force the writ petitioner has clearly stated that he had not made any 'plea of guilty' before the SSFC. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that the writ petitioner had made serious allegations of harassment against his Commandant, who ultimately convened and presided over the SSFC. It is the said Commandant, who ultimately sentenced the writ petitioner by inflicting the punishment of "dismissal from service". Otherwise also, in view of the clear stand of the writ petitioner taken while recording his statement during preparation of "Record of Evidence" by Sh. Bhanwar Singh appointed by the Commandant, it was incumbent upon the Court to advise the writ petitioner to withdraw his plea and try him as per the procedure laid down in the Rules. This part of the provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 142 of the Rules also does not appear to have been complied with by the SSFC. 23. Moreover plea of "guilty" has been recorded on a cyclostyle/type sheet with blanks which have been filled up later during recording of the plea. The questions asked to the writ petitioner-Constable are in English language without making it clear whether the questions were also translated in the manner the charge sheet is said to have been translated and read over to the writ petitioner. After recording the plea of guilty, the Commandant presiding over the Court has made a note by borrowing the language contained in Rule 142 of the Rules, as is evident from Sheet-B of the proceedings of the Court, which for facility of reference is reproduced herein below:- ".......The accused having pleaded guilty to both the charges the Court explains to the accused the meaning of charge(s) to which he has pleaded guilty and ascertains that the accused understands the nature of the charge(s) to ...........which he has pleaded guilty. The Court also inform the accused the general effect of that plea and the difference in procedure which will be followed consequent to the said plea. The Court having satisfied itself that the accused understands the charge(s) and the effect of his plea of guilty, accepts and records the same. The provisions of Rule 142(2) are complied with. The Court also inform the accused the general effect of that plea and the difference in procedure which will be followed consequent to the said plea. The Court having satisfied itself that the accused understands the charge(s) and the effect of his plea of guilty, accepts and records the same. The provisions of Rule 142(2) are complied with. Sd/- (P.C. Sharma, Commandant)" 24. From a reading of the extracted portion of the proceedings, it is crystal clear that is a pre-typed page where the particulars of the writ petitioner have been filled in with questions as to whether you plead "guilty" or "not guilty" to the charges. Below the questions, there are answer using singular word "guilty" and in the last paragraph, compliance to Rule 142 of the Rules is indicated by borrowing the language used in Rule 142 itself. As already noted, the plea of "guilty" is neither signed by the writ petitioner nor by Dy. Commandant-D.S. Samyal, who acted as friend of the writ petitioner in the trial. 25. The manner in which the plea is recorded and the other attending circumstances bring the 'plea of guilty' recorded by the SSFC in the realm of reasonable suspicion that the writ petitioner ever pleaded "guilty" before the SSFC. Merely saying or noting in the proceedings that the Rule 142 has been complied with is not the compliance. Before the plea of guilty is recorded, it is incumbent upon the Court to explain to the accused the nature and manner of the charge and forewarn him about the consequences and effect of the plea of guilty. The accused must be made aware that different procedure will be followed, if he pleads "guilty" and that one or more of the punishments laid down under the Act could be inflicted. It is only, if after understanding the charge and effects of recording plea of "guilty" as also being aware that a different procedure shall follow consequent upon recording of such plea, the accused voluntarily pleads "guilty" to the charges, such plea should be recorded. Warning to the accused of the general effects of the plea and the difference in procedure which will be followed consequent upon recording of such plea is sine qua non for recording 'plea of guilty'. 26. In the instant case, the respondents have put the cart before the horse. Warning to the accused of the general effects of the plea and the difference in procedure which will be followed consequent upon recording of such plea is sine qua non for recording 'plea of guilty'. 26. In the instant case, the respondents have put the cart before the horse. The plea of "guilty" is recorded first and then the writ petitioner has been stated to have been informed about what is laid down in Rule 142 of the Rules. Even in the absence of their being specific provision in Rule 142 in the year 2001, it was prudent for the SSFC to obtain signatures of the writ petitioners or his friend appointed to defend him in acknowledgement of such plea of "guilty" made by the writ petitioner to the charges for which he was put on trial by the SSFC. 27. Having regard to the facts and circumstances attending the instant case and the manner in which the alleged "plea of guilty" of the writ petitioner has been recorded, leaves us with no option but to come to a conclusion that the writ petitioner has either not pleaded "guilty" to any of the charge as is recorded by the Court or same was not voluntarily in nature. We are, therefore, of considered view that the right of the writ petitioner to have a fair trial before the SSFC has been violated and the writ petitioner has been condemned unheard. 28. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Summary Security Force Court proceedings including the award of sentence of "dismissal from service" are entirely vitiated. The Writ Court has not adverted to this aspect in right perspective and has without indicating much reasons concluded that the dismissal of the writ petitioner from service was in consonance with Rule 22 and, therefore, does not call for any interference. Whether or not the "plea of guilty" attributed to the writ petitioner was rightly recorded or not has not been dealt with by the Writ Court at all. 29. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the Writ Court impugned in this appeal. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and by writ of certiorari Order No. ESTT/71 BN/SSFC/2001/4543-64, dated 05.05.2001 is quashed. 29. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the Writ Court impugned in this appeal. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and by writ of certiorari Order No. ESTT/71 BN/SSFC/2001/4543-64, dated 05.05.2001 is quashed. The writ petitioner shall be deemed to have been reinstated in service with effect from the date he was dismissed from service with all consequential benefits. It shall, however, remain open to the respondents to proceed with and conclude the trial by Summary Security Force Court de novo within two months. The disbursement of consequential benefits shall be dependent upon the outcome of de novo trial by SSFC.