JUDGMENT
Anil Dev Singh, J.
1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner challenges the order of punishmentof dismissal from service imposed on him by the respondents. The facts giving rise tothe petition are as follows:-
2. The petitioner was a constable in the Border Security Force. The firstrespondent, Border Security Force, has been arrayed through its Director General, andthe second respondent, Union of India, has been imp leaded through the Secretary,Ministry of Home Affairs. The petitioner joined the Border Security Force onNovember 5, 1992. On the trade of the incident, viz., August 7, 2000, he wasdischarging his duties of a constable to the BOP Tent post. H.C. Mangal Dev Barmantook the roll call of he members of the force available in the BOP. After the roll call,HC Mangal Dev Barman asked them to spell out their grievances, if any. the petitioner who had also joined the roll call remonstrated by saying persons returningfrom last OP duty should not be deputed for the night ambush duty. HC Mangal DevBarman clarified that due to shortage of manpower every Jawan in the BOP is requiredto perform ambush duty. HC Pratap Singh, who was also present, interjected andsupported the views of HC Mangal Dev Barman. The intervention of HC Pratap Singhwas objected to by the petitioner. In response, HC Pratap Singh stated that whatever hehad said was true. Upon this the petitioner got irritated and took umbrage to theremarks of HC Pratap Singh. He threatened to kill him. HC Pratap Singh responded bysaying as to why the petitioner would kill him when all he was stating was that duty hadto be performed by all available persons in the BOP. The petitioner is alleged to havelost his temper and caught hold of HC Pratap Singh and pushed him ut of the roll callparade. He is also stated to have used abusive and filthy language. The brawl,however, was stopped at the intervention of others who were present at the roll callparade. The matter was reported by HC Pratap Singh to Post Commander SI BhagwanSingh who advised him to file a written complaint. Thereafter, HC Pratap Singh wentto the barrack to write a complaint. He was followed by the petitioner who startedinflicting blows on him. This resulted in following injuries on the person of HC PratapSingh:-
1. Injuries on the right eye accompanied by swelling due to haematoma,
2. Superficial cut at lower eyelid, and
3. Clot at nostrils accompanied by swelling around the nose.
On being beaten by the petitioner, HC Pratap Singh called out for help, whereuponsome persons came inside the barrack. On seeing them, the petitioner left for ambushduty. The petitioner was recalled from ambush duty, and an evidence report under Rule43 of the BSF Rules was prepared. The petitioner was charge sheeted on August 8,2000. The charges framed against him read as follows:-
“The accused No. 92477299 Cont. Bhisam Sigh of ‘E’ Coy, 145Bn BSF is charged with:-
FIRST CHARGE
BSF ACT 1968 SEC – 20(A)
ASSAULTING SUPERIOR OFFICER
in that he,
at BOP Tent Post on 7.8.2000 at about 1745 hrs, assaulted No.84005191 HC Pratap Singh of the same post causing injury on hisface and head.
SECOND CHARGE
BSF ACT 1968 SEC 026
INTOXICATION
in that he,
at BOP Tent Post on 7.8.2000 at about 1745 hrs, was found in astate of intoxication.”
The charges were heard by the Commandant under Rule 45 of the BSF Rules.Thereafter, the commandant ordered record of evidence to be prepared under Rule 48 ofthe BSF Rules. The record of evidence was prepared from August 12, 2000 to August18, 2000. Since a prima facie offence as disclosed, the Officiating Commandant, 145BN, BSF, placed the petitioner under close arrest and convened Summary SecurityForce Court for trial of the petitioner. On examination of the evidence recorded at thetrial, the Summary Security Force Court found the petitioner guilty of both the chargesunder Section 20(a) and 26 of the BSF Act, 1968. Accordingly, the Summary SecurityForce Court convicted the petitioner and awarded him punishment of dismissal fromservice w.e.f. September 25, 2000. The proceedings of Summary Security Force Courtwere transmitted to the DIG, BSF, under Rule 160 of the BSF Rules. The DIG, onconsideration of the mater, set aside the finding of he Summary Security Force Courtwith regard to the second charge without disturbing the finding on the first charge.The DIG also approved the sentence passed by the Summary Security Force Court.
The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Summary SecurityForce Court and the order of the DIG filed a writ petition being CWP No. 7550/2000.The writ petition, however, was withdrawn by the petitioner on December 14, 2000 asthe petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy available to him under Section 117 of the BSF Act. On the next day, viz., December 15, 2000, the petitioner filed astatutory representation under Section 117 of the BSF Act. This representation wasrejected by the DG, BSF on May 29, 2001. On rejection of the statutoryrepresentation, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties as they have consented to thedisposal of the writ petition at the show cause stage.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Summary Security ForceCourt was not competent to try the petitioner for an offence under Section 20(a) of theBSF Act. The learned counsel, in this regard, relied upon Rule 47 of the BSF Rules.Rule 47 of the BSF Rules lays down as follows:-
“47. Charges not to be dealt with summarily: A chargefor an offence under Section 14 or Section 15 or Clauses (a) & (b) ofSection 16, or Section 17 or Clause (a) of Section 18 or Clause (a) ofSection 20 or Clause (a) of Section 24 or Section 46 (other than thatfor simple hurt or theft) or a charge for abetment of or an attemptto commit any of these offences shall not be dealt withsummarily.”
5. According to the aforesaid Rule, a person charged with an offence under Section20(a) of the Act cannot be dealt with summarily. The aforesaid rule does not put anembargo on the trial by a Summary Security Force court of a person charged with anoffence under Section 20(a) of the BSF Act. The petitioner admittedly has not beendealt with summarily under Rule 47 of the BSF Rules, but has been tried by a SummarySecurity Force Court. As per Section 48 of the BSF Act, a Security Force Court isentitled to inflict punishment of dismissal from service in respect of offences committedby persons subject to the BSF Act. Under the Act, there are three kinds of SecurityForce courts, namely, (1) General Security Force Court, (2) Petty Security ForceCourt, and (3) Summary Security Force Court. Therefore, not only the petitionercould be tried by a Summary Security Force Court, but it could also order his dismissalfrom service on his conviction. Section 74 of the Act provides that subject to theprovisions of Sub-section (2) thereof, a Summary Security Force Court can try anyoffence punishable under the Act. A person charged with an offence under Section20(a) of the Act, therefore, can be tried by a Summary Security Force Court. It is not acase which falls under Sub-section (2) of Section 74 of the Act, nor it is so claimed bythe petitioner. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the holding of a SummarySecurity Force Court to try the petitioner for an offence under Section 20(a) of the Act.
6. It was then contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that thepunishment imposed on the petitioner is not commensurate with the gravity of theoffence. We do not find any force it he submission. To insult a senior officer and toadminister beating to him is a very serious charge. Basically, it is for the SecurityForce Court to consider as to what punishment should be imposed on a person subjecttot he Act who is charged with an offence. Ordinarily, a writ court does not interferewith the punishment imposed by the Security Force Court on the person who has beenconvicted of an offence under the Act unless the punishment is highly excessive and isnot commensurate with the gravity of the offence. We do not find any reason tointerfere with the sentence imposed by the Summary Security Force Court.
7. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sentence passedby the Summary Security force Court is violative of Article 20(2) of the Constitution.We fail to see how Article 20(2) of the Constitution is infringed in the instant case. IT is not the case of the petitioner that even on an earlier occasion he was tried by any oneof the Security force Courts and punished of the same offence for which he has beennow tried and punished by the Summary Security Force Court.
8. We may notice that besides the aforesaid incident, the counter-affidavit alsorecords the following two incidents for which court of enquiry was ordered against the petitioner:-
(1) One SI Ram Singh, Post Commander of BOP Kinokhal, was assaulted bythe petitioner on May 31, 2000 and June 1, 2000.
(2) The petitioner misbehaved with one Sharifuddin Sikdir, a student ofKinokhal School, and asked him to provide a girl to him to satiate his sexualdesire.
9. In the circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugnedorders passed by the Summary Security Force Court, the DIG, BSF, and the DirectorGeneral, BSF. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.