Mukandi Lal vs.uoi & Anr - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1223497
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnMay-28-2019
AppellantMukandi Lal
RespondentUoi & Anr
Excerpt:
in the high court of delhi at new delhi $~34 * + date of decision:28. 05.2019 % w.p.(c.) no.6086/2019 ........ petitioner mukandi lal through: dr. s.s.hooda and mr. aditya hooda, advocates. versus uoi & anr .....respondents through: ms. shubhra parashar and mr. v.p.s.charak, advocates. mr. shivanshu tiwari, dg. coram: hon'ble mr. justice vipin sanghi hon'ble mr. justice rajnish bhatnagar vipin sanghi, j.(oral) cm no.26227/2019 exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. the application stands disposed of. w.p.(c.) no.6086/2019 1. the petitioner has preferred this present writ petitioner to assail the order dated 26.4.2019 passed by the directorate general of border security force, whereby the respondents have rejected the petition preferred by the petitioner against his trial by summary security force court. the petitioner pleaded guilty to all the three charges framed against him. the summary w.p.(c.) no.6086/2019 page 1 of 4 security force court returned its finding of guilt against the petitioner on 15.10.2018.2. the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the facts of the present case, the plea of guilt ought not to have been recorded keeping in view the fact that the record of evidence did not support the plea of guilt. in this regard, reliance is placed on rule 142(2) of the border security force rules,1969. learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the third charge levelled against the petitioner was that on 10.2.2018, while deployed at gardhang high school, kalachara, ps-manubazar for assembly election duty in the state of tripura, the petitioner cocked his rifle in front of the duty so i.e asi (gd) umesh singh and said “saalo ko dekhta hoon”.3. learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the record of the enquiry.4. pw-1 in his statement stated that petitioner was in a state of intoxication at the relevant time. he stated that he had told the petitioner to go for duty. on hearing this, the petitioner murmured something; wore his shoes; came to the kote; drew his personal weapon, and; joined the adp party which had already fallen in. he further stated that si surjit kumar nandi, adp party commander reported to si. satish kumar that the party is ready to move but the petitioner is in the state of intoxication and unable to go with the adp. he further stated that the petitioner cocked his rifle and moved towards jawan barrack. on seeing this, pw-1 ran towards his room since he had woken him up for duty. in the mean time, pw-1 saw asi umesh singh-who was duty so and was standing in the veranda, grabbing w.p.(c.) no.6086/2019 page 2 of 4 the rifle of the petitioner and was trying to snatch it from the petitioner. on seeing this, pw-1 came towards the petitioner and helped asi umesh kumar along with camp sentry ct. h. mahapatra in taking away the rifle from the petitioner. after taking the rifle from the petitioner si satish kumar immediately reported the incident to the coy commander sh. prem kishore prasad, assistant commandant on mobile phone. ct. h. mahapatra, camp sentry, kept the loaded rifle in the kote. after that sh. p.k.prasad, coy commander, came in the coy location and the petitioner was further sent for medical examination to phc kalachera (tripura south) at about 110130 hours. the petitioner did not cross-examine pw-1. similar are the statements made by other pws in the record of enquiry, who were also not cross-examined by the petitioner. thus, in our view, there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the facts of the present case, the plea of guilt could not have been recorded in the light of the record of evidence by application of rule 142(2) of the bsf rules, 1969.5. learned counsel for the petitioner next argues that the petitioner had 29 years of service, and his removal from service has had the effect of denying him of his retiral dues. he submits that the petitioner would suffer financial ruination at this stage.6. considering the aforesaid position, we leave to the petitioner to apply for compassionate allowance under rule 41 of the ccs (pension) rules. in case, such an application is made, the respondents may consider the same on its own merits as per rules. w.p.(c.) no.6086/2019 page 3 of 4 7. the petition stands disposed of in the above terms. vipin sanghi, j.rajnish bhatnagar, j.may28 2019 ib/jitender w.p.(c.) no.6086/2019 page 4 of 4
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~34 * + Date of Decision:

28. 05.2019 % W.P.(C.) No.6086/2019 ........ Petitioner

MUKANDI LAL Through: Dr. S.S.Hooda and Mr. Aditya Hooda, Advocates. versus UOI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shubhra Parashar and Mr. V.P.S.Charak, Advocates. Mr. Shivanshu Tiwari, DG. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR VIPIN SANGHI, J.

(ORAL) CM No.26227/2019 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C.) No.6086/2019 1. The petitioner has preferred this present writ petitioner to assail the order dated 26.4.2019 passed by the Directorate General of Border Security Force, whereby the respondents have rejected the petition preferred by the petitioner against his trial by Summary Security Force Court. The petitioner pleaded guilty to all the three charges framed against him. The Summary W.P.(C.) No.6086/2019 Page 1 of 4 Security Force Court returned its finding of guilt against the petitioner on 15.10.2018.

2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the facts of the present case, the plea of guilt ought not to have been recorded keeping in view the fact that the record of evidence did not support the plea of guilt. In this regard, reliance is placed on Rule 142(2) of the Border Security Force Rules,1969. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the third charge levelled against the petitioner was that on 10.2.2018, while deployed at Gardhang High School, Kalachara, PS-Manubazar for Assembly Election duty in the State of Tripura, the petitioner cocked his Rifle in front of the duty SO i.e ASI (GD) Umesh Singh and said “Saalo ko Dekhta Hoon”.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the record of the enquiry.

4. PW-1 in his statement stated that petitioner was in a state of intoxication at the relevant time. He stated that he had told the petitioner to go for duty. On hearing this, the petitioner murmured something; wore his shoes; came to the kote; drew his personal weapon, and; joined the ADP party which had already fallen in. He further stated that SI Surjit Kumar Nandi, ADP party commander reported to SI. Satish Kumar that the party is ready to move but the petitioner is in the state of intoxication and unable to go with the ADP. He further stated that the petitioner cocked his rifle and moved towards jawan barrack. On seeing this, PW-1 ran towards his room since he had woken him up for duty. In the mean time, PW-1 saw ASI Umesh Singh-who was duty SO and was standing in the veranda, grabbing W.P.(C.) No.6086/2019 Page 2 of 4 the rifle of the petitioner and was trying to snatch it from the petitioner. On seeing this, PW-1 came towards the petitioner and helped ASI Umesh Kumar along with camp sentry Ct. H. Mahapatra in taking away the rifle from the petitioner. After taking the rifle from the petitioner SI Satish Kumar immediately reported the incident to the coy commander Sh. Prem Kishore Prasad, Assistant Commandant on mobile phone. Ct. H. Mahapatra, camp sentry, kept the loaded rifle in the kote. After that Sh. P.K.Prasad, Coy Commander, came in the coy location and the petitioner was further sent for medical examination to PHC Kalachera (Tripura South) at about 110130 hours. The petitioner did not cross-examine PW-1. Similar are the statements made by other PWs in the record of enquiry, who were also not cross-examined by the petitioner. Thus, in our view, there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the facts of the present case, the plea of guilt could not have been recorded in the light of the record of evidence by application of Rule 142(2) of the BSF Rules, 1969.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next argues that the petitioner had 29 years of service, and his removal from service has had the effect of denying him of his retiral dues. He submits that the petitioner would suffer financial ruination at this stage.

6. Considering the aforesaid position, we leave to the petitioner to apply for Compassionate Allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. In case, such an application is made, the respondents may consider the same on its own merits as per rules. W.P.(C.) No.6086/2019 Page 3 of 4 7. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. VIPIN SANGHI, J.

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.

MAY28 2019 ib/jitender W.P.(C.) No.6086/2019 Page 4 of 4