LexUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus EX-CONSTABLE AMRIK SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
v.
EX-CONSTABLE AMRIK SINGH
JANUARY 29, 1991
8
{S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA
REDDY, JJ.]
Border Security Force Act, 1968/ Border Security Force Rules,
1969: Section 117(2)/Rules 167-169-Petition under-Disposal of-
r-
Whether personal hearing required to be given.
c
Administrative Law: Natural justice-Principles of-Whether
applicable to special enactments like Border Security Force Act.
The respondent in the appeal, a Mounted Constable in the Border
Security Force, was charged for an offence under s. 3l(b) of the Border
D Security Force Act, 1968 for extracting s sum of money from a person
without proper authority. A charge-sheet was issued, evidence in
support of the same was recorded, and thereafter a Summary Security
· ·Force Court as provided under the Act was constituted and the respon-
dent was put on trial. During the recording of evidence, the respondent
was given an opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, but
E be declined, pleaded guilty and prayed for a lenient view to be taken.
The Summary Security Force Court passed an order sentencing him to
rigorous imprisonment for one year civil prison and also to be dismi$Sed
from service.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent preferred a
F
petition under s. 117(2) of the Act to the Director General, B.S.F., who
after going through the petition and the records of the case, rejected the
_ r
same as devoid of any merit. ·
~
The respondent thereupon f°Jled a petition under ,.t\rticles 226 and
227 of the Constitution .before the High Court urging that there was
G violation .of the principles of natural justice since he had not been heard
before disposing of his petition. The High Court allowed the writ peti-
tion, and directed fresh he~g of the petition of the respondent, after
giving him an opportunity of being heard.
The Union of India appealed to this Court against the decision of
H the High Court contending that s. ti 7(2) of the Act doesnot provide for
\
182
·-
-
,
~....,,
'--.I ..
'r
-·
---'...
-
~
r--
U.0.1. v. AMRIK SINGH
183
a personal hearing. The appeal was contested by the respondent con-
tending that as the Border Security Force Act doos not expressly exc-
lude a personal hearing and that an employee cannot be condemned
without observing the principles of natural justice.
On the question: whether a personal hearing is required before
disposing of a petition under s. 117(2) of the Border Security Force Act,
1968 against an order of the Summary Security Force Court,
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1. The doctrine of principles of natural justice and audi
alteram partem are part of Article 14 of the Constitution. Although
principles of natural justice apply to administrative orders affecting the
rights of citizen yet it is also clear that in cases of special enactments,
like Army Act, all the principles of natural justice cannot be imported.
The same ratio applies to a petition under s. 117(2) of the Border
Security Force Act also. [187A~B; 191G]
1.2 Chapter XIII consisting of Rules 167 to 169 of the Border
Secu.rity Force Rules deals with petitions filed under s. 117 of the
Border Security Force Act. Even in them there is nothing to indicate
that a bearing has to be given before disposal of a petition. [l91G-H]
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of1ndia, [1978] 2 SCR 621; Som Datt
Datta v. Union of India & Ors., [1969] 2 SCR 177; Union.of India v.
Jyoti Prakash Mitter, [1971] 1 SCC 396; Captain Barish Up pal v. Union
of India and Others, [1973] 2 SCR 1025; SIJ.!i S.N. Mukherjee v. Union
of India, JT 1990 (3} 630 and_ljnion_ offndia v. Col. J.N. Sinha and Anr.,
[1971] 1 SCR 791, relied on.
-
Lt. Col. K.N.S. Sidhu v. The Union of India and Others, All
India Service Law Journal 1977 page 721, referred to.
2.1 Under s. 117(2) of the Border Security Force Act, the person
aggrieved is only entitled to file a petition but the disposal of such a
petition does not attract principles of natural justice. [192A]
2.2 The authority disposing of the petition under s. 117(2) is not a
court.J and e!elJ' or~er p~d administratively cannot be subjected to
the rigours of prineiples of natural justice. [192B]
· ··
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
3. In the instant case, the respondent had been tried by observing
H
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1991] 1 S.C.R.
A
the due process of law, and the verdict of the Summary Security Force
Court was confirmed and it wExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.