CWP-8492-2004 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8492-2004 (O&M) RAM AVTAR ..Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..Respondents Reserved on: 10.08.2026 Pronounced on : 03.09.2026 Uploaded on : 07.09.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Simanpreet Kaur Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Sr. Panel Counsel Mr. Anil Chawla, Sr. Panel Counsel for respondents-UOI. * * * * * SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to order dated 09.08.2002, 07.11.2002 and 24.10.2003, whereby, the respondents dismissed the petitioner from service and revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. 2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the procedure as laid down in Border Security Force Rules, 1969 for an SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8492-2004 (O&M) -2- employee, who pleads guilty has not been followed by the respondents before dismissing the petitioner. He further contends that summary trial has also been wrongly conducted since the same is to be conducted in case of an emergency and not in ordinary course. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Vishav Priya Singh, 2016 AIR (SC) 3726. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents argues on the lines of written statement filed by respondents. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance. 5. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant Rules of The Border Security Force Rules, 1969, which are reproduced as under:- “47. Charges not to be dealt with summarily A charge for an offence under section 14 or section 15 or clauses (a) and (b) of section 16 or section 17 or clause (a) of section 18 or clause (a) of section 20 or clause (a) of section 24 or section 46 (other than that for simple hurt or theft) or a charge for abetment of or an attempt to commit any of these offences shall not be dealt with summarily. 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 SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8492-2004 (O&M) -3- 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. (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. 143. Procedure after plea of "Guilty " (1) Upon the record of the plea of "Guilty ", if there are other charges in the same charge-sheet to which the plea is "Not Guilty ", the trial shall first proceed with respect to those other charges, and, after the finding on those charges, shall proceed with the charges on which a plea of "Guilty "has been entered, but if there are alternative charges, the Court may either proceed with respect to all the charges as if the accused had not pleaded "Guilty "to any charge or may, instead of trying him, record a finding of "Guilty "upon any one of the alternative charges to which he had pleaded "Guilty "and finding of "Not Guilty "upon all the other alternative charges which precede such charge. (2)(a) After the record of the plea of "Guilty "on a charge (if the trial does not proceed on any other charges) the Court SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8492-2004 (O&M) -4- shall read the record or abstract of evidence and annex it to the proceedings, or if there is no such record, or abstract, shall take and record sufficient evidence to enable it to determine the sentence, and the reviewing officer to know all the circumstances connected with the offence. (b) The evidence shall be taken in like manner as is directed by these rules in the case of a plea of "Not Guilty". (3) The accused may, after such evidence has been taken or, as the case may be, the record or abstract of evidence has been read, address the Court with reference to the charge and in mitigation of punishment and may call witnesses as to his character. (4)(a) If from the statement of the accused, or from the record of evidence, or otherwise, it appears to the Court that the accused did not understand the effect of his plea of "Guilty ", the Court shall alter the record and enter a plea of "Not Guilty "and proceed with the trial accordingly. (b) Any alternative charges withdrawn under sub-rule (1) shall be reinstated in the charge-sheet and the trial shall take place as if they had never been withdrawn. (5) If a plea of "Guilty "is recorded on some charges and the trial proceeds with respect to other charges in the same charge-sheet, the proceedings under sub-rules (2) and (3) shall take place after the findings on the other charges in the same charge-sheet are recorded. (6) When the accused states anything in mitigation of punishment which in the opinion of the Court requires to be proved, and would, if proved, affect the amount of punishment, the Court may permit the accused to call witnesses to prove the same.” SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8492-2004 (O&M) -5- 6. A perusal of the file shows that when the charge was read over to the petitioner, he pleaded guilty. 7. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:- “The charge sheet is read (translated) and explained to the accused, marked Exhibit/Appendix – B. I signed by the court and attached to the proceedings. Question to the accused. How say you to 870210129 Rank HC/RO Name Ram Avtar are you guilty or not guilty of the first charge/ charge Ans. 1 Guilty The accused having pleaded guilty to charge charge, the court explains to the accused the meaning of charge (s) to which he has pleaded guilty and ascertains that the accused under stands the natures 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. Sd/-……..(08-08-2002) Commandant 50 Bn BSF” 8. The relevant portion of the proceedings of plea of guilty is reproduced as under:- “Proceeding on a plea of guilty The accused no 87021012 Rank HC/RO Name Ram Avtar of Sig P1 50 Bn BSF is found guilty of the charge (all the charges). The record of evidence is read (translated), explained marked Exhibit 'J' signed by the court and attached to the proceedings. SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8492-2004 (O&M) -6- Question to the accused Do you wish to make any statement in reference to the charge or in mitigation of punishment? Ans:- The accused says The punishment be minimized. Question to the accused Do you wish to call any witness as to character. Ans:- No” 9. A bare reading of Section 142(2) of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 as reproduced above shows that if accused person pleads guilty he has to be informed about the consequences of the same, which procedure was very well being followed by the respondents as per the document on record as reproduced above. In the present case, since the petitioner pleaded guilty, procedure as laid down under Rules 142(2) and Rule 143 as reproduced above, was followed before passing the impugned order. 10. It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant paras of the written statement filed by the respondents, which is reproduced as under:- “2. That the petitioner is a habitual offender and never tried to improve his conduct despite several punishments in the past. The detail of punishment awarded is as under :- (a) Reprimand on 09.10.1997 under Section 26 (Intoxication) (b) Reprimand on 29.10.1998 under Section 40 (Prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force). (c) Reprimand on 09.03.1999 under Section 26 (Intoxication). (d) Reprimand on 25.08.1999 under Section 19(a) & 26 Absence Without Leave (AWL)/Intoxication. (e) Reprimand on 07.04.2000 under Section 19(a) (AWL) SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8492-2004 (O&M) -7- (f) Severe Reprimand on 05.10.2001 under Section 19(a) (AWL) (g) Dismissed from Service on 08.08.2002 by SSFC under Section 19(a) (AWL). ON MERITS 2. That contents of Para 2 of the Writ Petition are wrong hence denied. However, it is submitted that the petitioner joined the BSF on 29.08.1987. An application dated 26.03.2002 regarding Leave/Interview of the Commandant was received from the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner interviewed by Commandant on 04.04.2002 and had informed him that his case for leave has been considered and rejected due to shortage of Radio Operators in the Unit. It is also necessary to state here that at the same time a disciplinary case regarding retirement on ground of unsuitability under BSF Rule 26 (for which a Show cause Notice also served to the petitioner earlier) was also pending against him. He was informed vide L.No Estt/Disc/50/2002/3022-23 dated 06.04.2002 (copy enclosed as Annexure R-1). Despite this the petitioner absented himself without leave with effect from 08.04.2002 from 1935 hours at his own without any information to his superior officers and without due authority. Now fabricated story has been made out that Inspector (Tech) N.R.Nair had promised him that he would be given him leave which is concocted and after thought. 3. That contents of Para 3 of the petition are denied. However, it is submitted that the petitioner absented himself without leave w.e.f. 08.04.2002 and accordingly an absent report was entered in BN Roznamcha as per procedure of BSF Act and Rule and an apprehension roll had been issued to Superintendent of Police District Hisar (Haryana) with copy to SHO P.S Fatehabad and SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8492-2004 (O&M) -8- SHO P.S. Bishalgarh, Tripura (South) vide letter No. Estt/Disc/50/02/3135-37 dated 11.04.2002 (Copy enclosed as Annexure R-II) with a request to apprehend the petitioner and arrange to hand him over to the Unit, but no action has been taken by Police authority. A registered letter No. 3213 dated 15.04.2002 (copy enclosed as Annexure R-III) was also sent to his home address with direction to rejoin duty forthwith, but the petitioner did not do so and reported back on 20.05.2002 at his own after absenting himself for 43 days without leave. As per Section 62 of BSF Act, a one man COI was also ordered by the Commandant vide Order No. 4201-03 but since the petitioner is reported back on 20.05.2002, court of inquiry was not required to be completed. The petitioner was put up on charge sheet on 12.06.2002 for committing an offence under Section 19(a) and a Record of Evidence, herein after called ROE, was ordered by the Commandant vide order No. 69-72 dated 12.06.2002 (copy enclosed at Annexure R-IV). Accordingly ROE was completed and submitted on 28.06.2002. 4. That in reply to Para 4 of the Writ Petition, it is submitted that petitioner was charged under BSF Act and Rules for committing an offence under Section 19(a) for absenting himself without leave from 08.04.2002 to 20.05.2002. Total period of absence was 43 days. The petitioner was heard by the Commandant on 12.06.2002 and a ROE ordered on the same day. ROE proceedings had been submitted by the Recording Officer on 28.06.2002 and on perusal of the ROE, Commandant had ordered to conduct a Summary Security Force Court herein after called SSFC against the petitioner on 07.08.2002 vide office order No. Estt/Disc/50/02/911-13 dated 06.08.2002. However, the same has been postponed to 08.08.2002 instead of 07.08.2002 due to some SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8492-2004 (O&M) -9- administrative reasons. The petitioner was tried by the SSFC on 08.08.2002 for the offence and awarded sentence "to be dismissed from service" with effect from 08.08.2002(AN) vide this office order No. Estt/SSFC/RA/50/02/7010-19 dated 08.08.2002. Accordingly the petitioner was struck off strength of 50 BN BSF on the same day. 5. That in reply to Para 5 of the Writ Petition, it is submitted that the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the SSFC was promulgated on the same day i.e. 08.08.2002 by the Commandant and dismissal order was also signed by the Commandant on 08.08.2002. Since the unit was deployed in Counter - Insurgency role in Kashmir Valley with its two offices i.e. main office at Bn HQ Radhabari (WB) and other office at TAC HQ Waripora (J&K), the order signed by Commandant on 08.08.2002 was circulated later to all concerned after making copies from Cyclostyle machine from BN HQ Radhabari. The another order No.1130 dated 09.08.2002 was published/circulated under the signature of Shri. R.R.Sharma, Dy Commandant of this unit from the office functioning at TAC HQ due to non receipt of order issued from Bn HQ Radhabari due to dak transaction in the Valley. 6. X X X 7. That contents of Para 7 of the Writ Petition are wrong hence denied. It is also submitted that orders passed by SSFC and DG BSF on the statutory petition of the petitioner were as per BSF Act and Rules and evidence on record including the fact that the petitioner was habitual offender. During 15 years of his service he earned 07 bad entries for offences under various sections of BSF Act, 1969. The details of punishments/adverse entries during his service period are as under :- SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8492-2004 (O&M) -10- (a) Reprimand on 09.10.1997 under Section 26 (Intoxication) (b) Reprimand on 29.10.1998 under Section 40 (Prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force). (c) Reprimand on 09.03.1999 under Section 26 (Intoxication). (d) Reprimand on 25.08.1999 under Section 19(a)& 26 Absence Without Leave (AWL)/Intoxication. (e) Reprimand on 07.04.2000 under Section 19(a) (AWL) (f) Severe Reprimand on 05.10.2001 under Section 19(a) (AWL) (g) Dismissed from Service on 08.08.2002 by SSFC under Section 19(a) (AWL) Hence the impugned orders are liable to be upheld in the interest of justice. (i) That contents of Sub-Para (i) are denied. However, it is submitted that prior to dismissal from service the then Commandant of the unit has issued/served show cause notice for his continuous offences under various sections of BSF Act for retirement on ground of unsuitability under BSF Rule 26 vide this office letter No Estt/Disc/50/02/1607-09 dated 19.02.2002 (copy enclosed as Annexure R- V). The then In-Charge Comn of the unit was also directed to keep close watch on activities, discipline, performance of duty of the petitioner. The petitioner was given sufficient time and opportunity to improve his performance and conduct, but he did not avail so. Hence contention of the petitioner is false and fabricated. Moreover, he had not produced any documents/proof in favour of illness SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8492-2004 (O&M) -11- of his mother during the interview by the Commandant and after the interview, the Commandant had also advised to write a letter to his Advocate for postpone the date of hearing. (ii) That contents of Sub Para (ii) are denied. It is submitted that prior to absent without leave by the petitioner from unit on 08.04.2002, he had been interviewed by the then Commandant of this unit with reference to the application dated 26.03.2002 regarding leave. His request for leave was considered and rejected by the Commandant due to acute shortage of Radio operators in the unit at that time and also pending disciplinary case regarding retirement on ground of unsuitability (for his 6 bad entries under various section of BSF Act, 1969). Accordingly, he was informed vide this office letter dated 06.04.2002. Since he was absent without leave w.e.f. 08.04.2002 from unit line, an apprehension roll in respect of above petitioner was issued to Superintendent of Police District Hisar (Haryana) with copy to SHO P.S. Fatehabad and SHO P.S Bishalgarh, Tripura(South) vide letter No. Estt/Disc/50/02/3135-37 dated 11.04.2002 with a request to apprehend the petitioner and arrange to hand him over to the unit. A registered letter No. 3213 dated 15.04.2002 was also sent to his home address with direction to rejoin duty forthwith, otherwise disciplinary action would be taken against him as per BSF Act and rules, but the petitioner failed to take opportunity and reported back on 20.05.2002 at his own after absenting himself 43 days without leave. As per section 62 of BSF Act, a one man COI was also ordered by the Commandant vide order No. 4201-03 (first week of SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8492-2004 (O&M) -12- May, 2002) but since the petitioner reported back on 20.05.2002, court of inquiry was not required to be completed. The petitioner was put up on charge sheet on 12.06.2002 for committing an offence under section 19(a) and a ROE was ordered by the Commandant for quick disposal of the case vide order No. 69-72 dated 12.06.2002. Accordingly, ROE was completed and submitted on 28.06.2002. BSF Act Section 62 has been complied with and action taken against the petitioner was as per BSF Act and Rules. (iii) That contents of Sub-Para (iii) are denied. However, it is submitted that sentence awarded to the petitioner by the SSFC was based on evidence on record keeping in view his previous record and after giving him sufficient time and opportunity to improve his performance and conduct, but the petitioner failed to improve his performance and repeated the offence time and again and further no proper documents/explanation for such offences was produced by the petitioner during the SSFC trial. iv) That content of Sub- Para (iv) are misleading hence denied. It is submitted that SSFC trial was conducted as per BSF Act and Rules and all the legal requirements were complied with. The petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge during SSFC trial and after following due process of Law and seeing the previous record of his service he was sentenced to be dismissed from service. It is also necessary to state here that full opportunity of hearing and to cross-examine the witnesses was given to the petitioner but he did not cross-examine and witness. SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8492-2004 (O&M) -13- (v) That contents of Sub- Para (v) are wrong, hence, denied. It is submitted that sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to prepare himself before the SSFC trial. The petitioner was informed regarding SSFC trial vide this office letter dated 05.08.2002 and was also directed to nominate one officer of his choice for detailing as friend of the accused during the trail vide this office letter No. Estt/Disc/50/02/886 dated 05.08.2002. Copy of ROE proceedings, offence report were also provided to him on 05.08.2002. However, due to some administrative reasons, the petitioner was informed that SSFC trial would be held on 08.08.2002 instead of 07.08.2002. Rule 143(2) had been fully complied with during SSFC trial of the petitioner. (vi) That contents of Sub-Para (vi) are denied. It is again submitted that the sentence awarded to the petitioner during the SSFC trial after going through the entire evidence and previous record including explanation of the petitioner and the said is as per procedure lay down in BSF Act and Rules. (vii) That contents of Sub- Para (vii) are misleading hence denied. It is again submitted that during the period of his service he earned seven bad entries under various Sections of BSF Act 1969 as mentioned in foregoing Para which clearly shows that he was a habitual offender and punished time and again despite giving him sufficient opportunities to improve himself. The petitioner had been punished under Section 19(a) i.e. absent without leave four times, under Section 26 i.e. intoxication 3 times and under Section 40 i.e. an act SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8492-2004 (O&M) -14- prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force. (vii-A) That contents of Sub-Para (vii-A) are denied. It is submitted that punishment given to the petitioner by SSFC is proportionate to the offence of the petitioner and as per BSF Act and Rules. (viii) That contents of Sub-Para (viii) are denied. However, it is submitted that the statutory petition against the dismissal order submitted by the petitioner had been considered very carefully in the light of relevant records, legal provision and evidence in SSFC trial proceedings by the Director General BSF and after careful scrutiny of all facts and circumstances of the case, DG BSF has rejected the petition being devoid of merit. (ix) That contents of sub-Para (ix) are denied. It is submitted that order passed by the Director General vide letter No. 6/56/2003/CLO(D&L)/BSF/664-68 dated 24.10.2003 is very much justified keeping in view the offence committed by the petitioner and his previous record of service and due to which statutory petition submitted by the petitioner had been considered and rejected by the Director General, BSF. The details of the misconduct done by the petitioner during the service have already been mentioned above. Absence without leave from duty is itself a very serious offence and the petitioner was habitual offender of absence without leave, for which the petitioner punished four times during his service period. 8. That in view of the above stated facts and circumstances, it is respectfully submit that no law point is involved in the present case. SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8492-2004 (O&M) -15- 9. That no comments are being offered in reply to Para 9 of the Writ petition. 10. That Para 10 of the Writ petition is denied for want of knowledge. 11. That no comments are being offered in reply to Para 11 of the Writ petition. 12. That no comments are being offered in reply to Para 12 of the Writ petition.” 11. A bare reading of above referred to relevant portion of written statement shows that petitioner was habitual offender and during his 15 years of service, he earned 07 bad entries for offences under various sections of BSF Act, 1969. 12. Therefore, in view of the stand taken by respondents in the written statement, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. 13. So far as the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding summary trial is concerned, the same would not be relevant in the case of the petitioner since as per para 5 of the written statement, the summary trial was conducted since petitioner was deployed in Counter-insurgency role in Kashmir Valley, which was a sensitive area at that point of time. 14. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed. 15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 03.09.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub/Saahil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SAHIL 2026.09.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.