JUDGMENT : SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J. 1. Petitioner joined Border Security Force in the post of Constable and he was posted in 47 Battalion, BSF, under the authority of Commandant, 144 Battalion, BSF, Kalayani, District-Nadia, West Bengal. 2. The brief fact of the case is that hence the instant writ petition on 03.09.2013 an accidental firing was done by the Petitioner at B.O.P. Sandeshkhali at 10:10 PM, ASI Ram Singh (PW-4) was wounded in his below left knee position, incidents occurred when the Petitioner in the process of weapon clearing drill prior to depositing his Firearm (NS Rifle) to the KOTE of B.O.P. Sandeshkhali. Thereafter on 04.09.2013 The Petitioner put under close arrest and was taken in BSF custody till 30.10.2014 and by order of the Commandant of 47 BN BSF Mr. J.S. Sandhu the Petitioner was suspended. Thereafter on 05.09.2013 FIR was lodged against the Petitioner by the Coy. Commander of B coy of 47 BN BSF Dilip Kumar Biswas before Hingalgunge Police Station vide Hingalgunge P.S. Case No. 96 dated 05.09.2013 @ 15:15 Pm by alleging that the Petitioner intentionally fired towards S.I. Babu Lal (PW-1) to kill him and also wounded ASI Ram Singh (PW-4). Thereafter on 14.09.2013 Vide an order passed by the Commandant of 47 BN BSF Mr. J.S. Sandhu three charges were framed against the Petitioner as follows: (a) FIRST CHARGE: Under section 46 of the Border Security Force Act for committing a civil offence that is to say attempt to murder punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. (b) SECOND CHARGE: Under section 46 of the Border Security Force Act for committing a civil offence that is to say voluntarily causing grievous hurt by means of an instrument punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. (C) THIRD CHARGE: Under section 32(a) of the Border Security Force Act making away with arms and ammunitions (AMN) the property of the Government issued to him for his use. Thereafter on 17.06.2016 an order was passed by the DIG under office of the IG, South Bengal Frontier, BSF to form General Security Force Court to conduct trial of the Petitioner upon above three charges. From 27.06.2016 to 28.07.2016 trial conducted by the General Security Force Court (GFSC) by taking deposition of total number of 13 prosecution witnesses including eye witness cum victim as PW-4 (ASI Ram Singh). From 27.06.2016 to 28.07.2016 trial conducted by the General Security Force Court (GFSC) by taking deposition of total number of 13 prosecution witnesses including eye witness cum victim as PW-4 (ASI Ram Singh). Thereafter on 28.07.2026 the Learned GFSC sentenced the Petitioner by pronouncing as “To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to be dismissed from the service.” Thereafter on 10.01.2017 the ADG, BSF confirmed the aforesaid sentence of the Petitioner and subsequently the Petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Director General, BSF and such appeal has been dismissed on 30.01.2018 by the Director General, BSF. Hence this Writ Petition. 3. Mr. Soumya Majumder, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the petitioner was performing weapon clearing drill before depositing the weapon after duty at the time accidental firing was happened. He further argued that the several inconsistencies appeared in the statement of PWs regarding the alleged fact of firing. The authority concerned/prosecution has failed to prove the primary ingredients of offence i.e. mens ria of the petition against the wounded ASI Ram Singh (PW-4). The evidences also disclosed that there are several contradictions regarding the alleged fact of firing. He further argued that the evidences of seizure of used bullets has not been specifically proved the intention of petitioner for causing grievous hurt or causing such an injury which may lead to loss of life. 4. Mr. Majumder further argued that the trial conducted by the authority has not proved the charge against petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The criminal trial requires the offence/charges to proved beyond reasonable doubt. In this case the authority has acted illegally dealing with the trial of an accidental firing. 5. It is the further argument of Mr. Majumder that there is utter violation of the principle of natural justice. The petitioner never asked to his evidences, rather after completion of PWs, the order of sentence was passed without giving him appropriate opportunity to place his evidence or any evidence of his favour. So Mr. Majumder prayed for setting aside the order passed by the authorities against the petitioner. 6. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities has argued that three charges are framed against the present petition in the trial, 13 prosecution witnesses including the injured victim was examined and properly cross-examined. The evidences of the prosecution witnesses has sufficiently proved the charges against the petitioner. 6. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities has argued that three charges are framed against the present petition in the trial, 13 prosecution witnesses including the injured victim was examined and properly cross-examined. The evidences of the prosecution witnesses has sufficiently proved the charges against the petitioner. The petitioner shall give sufficient opportunity to produce evidences of his favour but he has not wished to adduce any evidence in his favour. Thus the orders of sentence against the petitioner by Learned GFSC are justified. The petitioner has preferred a statutory appeal against the said order before the ADG, BSF who after giving appropriate opportunity to the petitioner has confirmed the order of sentence against the petitioner. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent authority argued that the writ court cannot entertain that finding of the competent authority based on the evidences. He prayed for dismissal of the instant writ petition. 8. Having heard the Learned Counsels for the parties it appears that the petitioner has faced the trial for the offence wherein three charges were framed u/s 46 of Border Security Force Act for committing a civil offence of attempt to murder u/s 307 IPC and u/s 46 of BSF Act for committing a civil offence of voluntary causing grievous hurt by means of an instrument for shooting, punishable u/s 326 IPC and u/s 32(a) of BSF Act 1968 for making away with arms and ammunition the property of the Government issued to petitioner for his use. 9. A full fledged trial has been conducted before the appropriate authority under the BSF Act. The competent authority is of view that all three charges were proved against the petitioner. The competent authority after completion of trial had pronounced sentences of punishment. The said sentence was placed before the appropriate confirming authority i.e. Additional Directorate General (EC) BSF. The Confirming authority also re-assess the evidences and has uphold the sentence and passed by the competent authority; against the said order a statutory appeal has been preferred before the Directorate General, who also had confirmed the order of sentence passed by the competent authority. 10. Before this writ court the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the authority concern in respect of the sentence. 10. Before this writ court the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the authority concern in respect of the sentence. It has been categorically argued before this court that there are delay of lodging FIR, which was not explained; charges were not established beyond reasonable doubt; there is no mens ria on behalf of the petitioner for committing the alleged offence. Further, it has been pointed out that there are some discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses. 11. I have carefully gone through the papers and annexure of the writ petition. It appears that the defence counsel on behalf of the petitioner was always present at the time of trial and he also cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, the point raised before this court has already been raised before the appropriate authority at the time of disposing of pre-confirmation petition as well as before the first appellate authority. All the time the petitioner and/or his representatives were present at the time of hearing. The authority concern has opined their views on the points has raised by the petitioner. 12. Let me consider whether this writ court can re-assess or re-appreciate the findings of the competent authority in respect of the proceeding conducted by them according to the statute. Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions, started from Union of India vs. H.C. Goel, 1963 SCC Online SC 16 has held that: In exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 on such a plea, the High Court cannot consider the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion. That is a matter which is within the competence of the authority which deals with the question; but the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence illegally the impugned conclusion follows or not. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence illegally the impugned conclusion follows or not. Applying this test, we are inclined to hold that the respondent's grievance in well founded, because, in our opinion, the finding which is implicit is the appellant's order dismissing the respondent that charge number 3 is proved against him is based on no evidence. 13. In my view, the jurisdiction of High Court for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of the departmental proceeding against the writ petitioner has to satisfy the following the tests: (i) Whether the enquiry was conducted properly and fairly. (ii) Whether opportunity to defend was sufficiently accorded to the petitioner. (iii) Whether there is any violation of principle of natural justice, in conducting the enquiry. (iv) Whether the proceeding violates any fundamental right of the petitioner. (v) Whether the authority concern conducting the enquiry having no jurisdiction. (vi) Whether the authority conducting the enquiry has acted in mala fide or suffers arbitrariness. (vii) Whether the situation arises during the enquiry was such a nature that it invites immediate interference of the writ court. 14. In the instant case the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself, moreover, the petitioner’s counsel has cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. The view adopted by the concern authority in this case appears to me not improbable so far as the tests mentioned above. This court is not setting in a court of second appeal to re-appreciate or a re-access the evidences adduced before the appropriate authority. 15. It has been argued before this court by the petitioner that he was not given opportunity to adduce his witnesses or explained any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him as per provision under Rule 93 of Border Security Force, Rule 1969: 93. 15. It has been argued before this court by the petitioner that he was not given opportunity to adduce his witnesses or explained any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him as per provision under Rule 93 of Border Security Force, Rule 1969: 93. Case for the defence: (1) After the close of the case for the prosecution, the Presiding Officer or the Law Officer (if any) shall explain to the accused that: (a) if he wishes, he may give evidence on oath as a witness or make a statement without being sworn but that he is not obliged to do either. (b) if he gives evidence on oath, he shall be liable to be cross-examined the prosecutor and to be questioned by the Court. (2) For the purpose of enabling the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court may, at any stage of the trial, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary, and shall for the purpose aforesaid, question him generally on the case after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence. (3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them but the Court may draw such inference from such refusal or answers as it thinks just. (4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such trial and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed. (5) If the accused intends to call a witness to the facts of the case other than himself, he may make an opening address outlining the case for the defence before the evidence for the defence is given. I have perused the recordings of proceeding. It appears that after completion of prosecution witnesses the presiding officers/court offer petitioner whether he intends to adduce any evidence but he denied producing or adducing any evidences. I have perused the recordings of proceeding. It appears that after completion of prosecution witnesses the presiding officers/court offer petitioner whether he intends to adduce any evidence but he denied producing or adducing any evidences. It further appears from the recording of evidences that after recording of each prosecution witnesses the court put some question to the accused/petitioner to explain any circumstances appearing in the version of the particular PW against him, in all the cases the petitioner/accused has explained the question of court put before him. Thus it appears that during the trial the provision of Rule 93 has been properly followed. 16. The implication of Section 313 Cr.P.C and Rule 93 of Border Security Force Rules 1969, are not same. Section 313 Cr.P.C provides a court shall, after witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before the accused is called for his defence question made additionally on the case personally to explain any circumstances appearing any evidence against him. The procedure appeared u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is not similar to that of the procedure under Rule 93 of the Border Security Force Rules 1969. The Rule 93 only empowers the Presiding Officers or the Court to put question the accused after the closure of the witness of the prosecution, if he wish to give an evidence or oath as a witness. In this case petitioner refused to avail such opportunity. Section 313 Cr.P.C. does not require the statement of the accused on oath. 17. On the basis of discussion made above, I am of a view that the argument advanced by the petitioner regarding non-compliance of Rule 932 BSF Rule 1969 he is not tenable in the eye of law. 18. Under the observation made above I am of a view that the respondent authority has conducted proceeding according to the laws, against the petitioner. I am also at per with the view of the authority that the firing of the petitioner at the relevant point of time is not an accidental firing. The entire conduct of the petitioner and the circumstances therein does not support the case of the petitioner that it is an accidental firing. 19. Thus I find no justification to entertain the writ petition. Hence the writ petition is dismissed and disposed of. 20. Under the above observation the instant writ petition, being merit less, is dismissed and disposed of. 21. 19. Thus I find no justification to entertain the writ petition. Hence the writ petition is dismissed and disposed of. 20. Under the above observation the instant writ petition, being merit less, is dismissed and disposed of. 21. Parties to act upon the server copy and urgent certified copy of the judgment be received from the concerned Dept. on usual terms and conditions.