Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010258332025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/29/2026 1.THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK , NEW DELHI-110001. 2: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF JAMMU FRONTIER, BSF, PALOURA CAMPUS, JAMMU (J&K), PIN-181124. 3: THE COMMANDANT, 98 BN, BSF BSF THQ PALOURA BSF CAMP, JAMMU (J&K), PIN-181124. 4: THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, LAW BRANCH, FHQ BSF, NEW DELHI-110001. …… Appellants -VERSUS - No. 119880627 CONSTABLE GD DEBEN SINHA, C COY, 98 BN BSF, SON OF DINENDRA NARAYAN SINHA, RO: ALGAPUR, P.O.: RAJNAGAR, DISTRICT: CACHAR, P.S.: SILCHAR, AASAM, PIN-788026. …… Respondent – BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY For the Appellant(s) : Mr. K.K. Parasar, Central Government Counsel. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M.J. Quadir, Advocate. Page No.# 2/8 Date of hearing : 09.06.2026. Date of Judgment : 09.06.2026. J UDGMENT & O RDER (O RAL ) (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Central Government Counsel for the appellants and Mr. M.J. Quadir, learned counsel for the sole respondent. 2. This writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.07.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.5947/2021, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service and has been held to be entitled to pay and allowances on such reinstatement. 3. By order dated 24.07.2020 passed by the Commandant, 98 Battalion of Border Security Force, the respondent was dismissed from service in connection with a decision by the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC). The appeal against the afore-noted order was also dismissed vide order dated 19.07.2021. 4. The respondent, while posted at Jammu Frontier, Border Security Force at Paloura, Jammu, was found to be sleeping at his Post. When the respondent was asked to wake up by his colleague, he picked up his INSAS Rifles, cocked it and also fired. The shot hit no one. He was immediately disarmed and later subjected to a disciplinary proceeding, Page No.# 3/8 5. A Record of Evidence (RoE) was ordered on 12.06.2019. Later, a Summary Security Force Court trial was approved and the same was conducted on 24.07.2020 by the Commandant of 98 Battalion, BSF under Sections 20(a) [assaulting superior]; 16(c) [sleeping at the post]; 20(b) [using threatening language]; and 22(e) [disgraceful conduct] of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Act of 1968”). The respondent pleaded guilty to charge Nos.1, 2 and 4 but not guilty for charge No.3, namely, threatening. He was assisted by a “friend of the accused” of his choice. However, he was sentenced to dismissal from service, which was conveyed to him on 24.07.2020. As noted above, the statutory appeal preferred by the respondent before the Inspector General, Frontier Headquarter, BSF, Jammu was rejected as meritless. 6. A writ petition thereafter was filed by the respondent vide WP(C) No.4265/2021 challenging the dismissal but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.09.2021. He again filed a writ petition vide WP(C) No.5947/2021 alleging procedural flaws, especially, that the Commandant acted as an Interpreter without providing any objection/opportunity to the respondent and that no Prosecutor was appointed. He denied the allegation that he had cocked the rifle for harming any person; rather, it was out of fear and for self-defence. 7. The appellants defended the proceedings before the learned Single Judge as compliant with the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Rules of 1969”). It was urged before the learned Single Judge that Rule 134(2) of the Rules of 1969 allowed the Page No.# 4/8 Court to act as an Interpreter and that no Prosecutor is actually required in Summary Security Force Court. The appellants also relied on the voluntary guilt plea of the respondent. 8. However, by the impugned judgment, the dismissal order of the respondent was quashed by holding the proceedings to have been vitiated because of the dual role adopted by the Commandant as the Presiding Officer as also of an Interpreter, reflected bias and for improper recording of the plea of guilt. It was also observed by the learned Single Judge that the provisions contained in Section 134(2) of the Rules of 1969, was not followed in its entirety. 9. While quashing the punishment of dismissal of the respondent, the learned Single Judge also held that the three out of the four charges levelled against the respondent was held to be proved against him on the guilt plea recorded by him in the proceedings in question. 10. The guilt plea made by the respondent had to be considered in terms of the provisions of the Rules of 142 and 143 of the Rules of 1969. Rule 134 thereof is being extracted herein below for ready reference: “134. Evidence when to be translated- (1) When any evidence is given in a language which the Court of the accused does not understand, that evidence shall be translated to the Court or accused as the case may be in a language which it or he does understand. (2) The Court shall for this purpose either appoint an interpreter, or shall itself take the oath or affirmation prescribed for the interpreter at a Summary Security Force Court. (3) When documents are produced for the purpose of formal proof, it shall be Page No.# 5/8 in the discretion of the Court to cause as much to be interpreted as appears necessary.” 11. A bare perusal of Rule 134 of the Rules of 1969 would reflect that whenever it is necessary, the evidence would either be translated to the Court or the accused in a language in which the Court or the accused understands. 12. For the aforesaid purpose, Rule 134(2) gives the latitude to the Court that for such purposes, the Court would either appoint an Interpreter, or would itself be the Interpreter and take the oath or affirmation prescribed for the Interpreter at a Summary Security Force Court. 13. The Presiding Officer, in this instance, himself became an Interpreter though there is nothing in the record to indicate that he had prescribed the oath of affirmation prescribed for interpreting at a Summary Security Force Court. Nonetheless, no such challenge was made regarding the Presiding Officer himself becoming the Interpreter by the respondent during the proceedings or even in the appeal. 14. Apart from that, as has rightly been argued by the appellants/Union of India & Ors., the respondent hails from the Manipuri community and understood Hindi language very well. That apart, no objection raised by him at any stage either during the proceedings or in the appeal would disentitle him to raise this issue at this stage. Page No.# 6/8 15. A perusal of records further reveals that the guilt plea made by the respondent was voluntary. 16. Rule 142 of the Rules of 1969 provides that the plea of guilt shall be recorded with respect to each of the charges. If an accused 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 understands the nature of the charges to which he has pleaded guilty and shall inform him of the general effect of that plea, and in particular the meaning of the charge to which he had pleaded guilty, and of the difference in procedure which will be made by the plea of guilt 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 not to plead guilty. After the recording of the plea of guilt, the signature of the accused and “the friend of the accused” shall be obtained. 17. Rule 143 provides that on the recording of the plea of guilt with respect to some of the charges and if there are other charges in the same charge-sheet to which the accused had not pleaded guilty, the trial shall first proceed with respect to those charges, and, after giving finding on those other charges, shall proceed with the charges on which a plea of guilt has been entered. However, if there are alternative charges, the Court could either proceed with respect to such charges as if the accused had not pleaded guilty to any charge, or may, instead of trying him, record a finding of guilt upon any one of the alternative charges to which he had pleaded guilty and finding of not guilty upon all Page No.# 7/8 the other alternative charges which precede such charge. There are other procedural safeguards provided in Rules 142 and 143 of the Rules of 1969. 18. It appears that all those safeguards have been followed in the instant case. The records further reveal that during the trial, 13(thirteen) Prosecution Witnesses were examined and 13(thirteen) documents were also exhibited. The respondent neither adduced any evidence nor offered any document in defence. 19. The plea of guilt also was voluntary and the records reveal that the respondent was made to understand the effect of his plea of guilt. 20. The learned Single Judge interfered with the order passed by the Summary Security Force Court and of the Appellate Authority primarily on the ground of the Presiding Officer of the Summary Security Force Court having adopted the dual responsibility of being the Court and the Interpreter, both. This is permissible. That apart, as already noted above, no objection regarding the same was raised by the respondent at any stage of the proceedings. 21. Thus, we find that the interference with the finding of the Summary Security Force Court and the Appellate Authority was not required/justified especially in such a case where there is a positive breach of the duty protocol in a disciplined service. 22. For the afore-noted reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and restore the findings Page No.# 8/8 and the punishment of the Summary Security Force Court as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority affirming the same. 23. With the above observation, the appeal stands allowed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant Bijoy Sarma Digitally signed by Bijoy Sarma Date: 2026.06.09 19:15:38 +05'30'