Randhir Kumar Suman v. Union Of India & Ors.

Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.:— The writ petitioner, who is a paramilitary force, was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding under Border Security Force Act, 1968. He was issued charge sheet, he was given opportunity to defend and he was held guilty by the Summary Security Force Court. The writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority also rejected the appeal thereby confirming the order of dismissal passed by the Summary Security Force Court.

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel appearing the writ petitioner submits that the order passed by the Summary Security Force Court by one word ‘guilty’ is not sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against the writ petitioner.

Mr. Bhattacharya submits that the impugned order of dismissal was passed without disclosing any reason whatsoever.

Mr. Bhattacharya submits that this Hon'ble Court in a decision reported in 2005 1 C.L.J 116 (Roni Thomas v. Union of India) held that this Hon'ble Court while considering the order of Summary Security Force Court recorded that the order impugned passed in that case is a typical instance of arbitrariness on the part of the statutory authority. It was held that the Summary Security Force Court was trying the petitioner on the ground that he had allegedly committed offence under the provisions of the Act. While it spoke about its findings in support of its decision, it refrained itself from recording such findings. In that judgement the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court held that recording of the reasons in support of a decision is one of the fundamental requirements of the rule of law and when Summary Security Force Court was acting as quasi judicial authority, it was definitely under the obligation to record its findings and reasons in support of its decision to punish the petitioner. On that basis the impugned order passed in that case was set aside.

Mr. Bhattacharya further submits that same situation has occurred in the instant case and the Summary Security Force Court holding the writ petitioner ‘guilty’ an order of dismissal was passed.

Mr. Bhattacharya submits that Summary Security Force Court should have recorded reasons for holding the writ petitioner guilty and also for coming to a conclusion that the writ petitioner should be dismissed from service.

Learned Counsel for the respondent authority submits that there is no requirement under Rule 149(1) for the Summary Security Force Court to give reasons rather it expressly require not to give reasons, not being amended and rule 99 not related to Summary Security Force Court was amended. According to him, considering the special provision relating to Summary Security Force Court, reasons are not required to be given either by the Summary Security Force Court or by the appellate authority from an appeal under Section 117(2) of Border Security Force Act, 1968.

Learned Counsel referred a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2010) 3 SCC 161 (Union of India v. Dinesh Kumar). He has referred paragraph 23 and according to him, as per the aforementioned Supreme Court decision no reason is required to be given either by Summary Security Force Court or by the appellate authority as per Rule 149.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and considered the submission made by them. It appears that the ground of challenge of the impugned order passed by the Summary Security Force Court as well as by the appellate authority is non discloser of reasons for holding guilty and the resultant dismissal.

I have considered the judgements delivered by the Learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court. Relevant portion of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement reads as follows:-

“23. In this backdrop, it is clear that the provisions for the SSFC and the appellate authority are pari materia, more particularly in case of Rule 149 and Section 117(2) of the Act, with the provisions which were considered in both the above authorities. Therefore, there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that as held by the Constitution Bench, the reasons would not be required to be given by the SSFC under Rule 149 or by the appellate authority under Section 117(2) of the Act. This position is all the more obtained in case of SSFC, particularly, as the legislature has chosen not to amend Rule 149, though it has specifically amended Rule 99 w.e.f 9-7-2003. It was pointed out that in spite of this, some other view was taken by the Delhi High Court in Nirmal Lakra… v. Union Of India & Ors.…, it need not detail us, since Rule 149 did not fall for consideration in that case. Even otherwise, we would be bound by law declared by the Constitution Bench in S.N Mukherjee v. Union Of India. of India.”

In my view, after the aforementioned Supreme Court decision there is no scope to reargue matter. The point has already been decided before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that no reason is required to be given by the Summary Security Force Court or by the appellate authority under Rule 149 of the Rules framed under the Border Security Force Act, 1968.

Mr. Mintu Goswami, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that whatever benefits the writ petitioner is entitled under the law, the respondents be directed to release the same.

Accordingly, I direct the respondent authorities to release the benefits, which the writ petitioner is entitled to as provided under law.

The writ petition is without any merit and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.