NDLI: Union of India & Others Vs. Jogeshwar Swain

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Border Security Force Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Border Security Force Act, 1968 (47 of 1968)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in setting aside the dismissal order of the constable found guilty of misconduct, since it was vitiated by infraction of the prescribed procedure as also was based on no evidence.Service Law – Border Security Force Act, 1968 – Border Security Force Rules, 1969 – rr. 49(3), 142(2) – Dismissal from service – Plea of guilty – Procedural safeguards u/r. 142(2) – Non-compliance of – Allegations against Border Security Force constable of clicking the photographs of lady doctor while she was taking bath – Proceedings initiated by the Summary Security Force Court wherein constable pleaded guilty – Order of dismissal from service against the constable – Set aside by the High Court on the ground of non-compliance of the prescribed procedure as also no evidence – Correctness:Held: High Court was justifi ed in fi nding the dismissal of the constable on the basis of the plea of guilty unwarranted and liable to be set aside in exercise of powers u/Art. 226 – Abstract of evidence recorded was not provided to the constable and twenty-four hours’ time was not given to him for refl ection thus, a clear infraction of the proviso to sub rule (3) of r. 49 – Confession, if any, made during the course of preparation of the record of evidence, liable to be ignored – Minutes of the proceedings of the SSFC was nothing but a verbataim reproduction of the statutory rule, thus, non-compliance of r. 142(2) – Minutes of the proceedings recording the plea of guilty did not bear the signature of the constable – In absence of signature of the constable, pleading guilty appears to be an unnatural conduct and further dents the credibility of the SSFC proceeding – Furthermore, there was no eye-witness of the incident; the camera was recovered from some other person’s house; the witness to the keeping of the camera by the constable, in her previous statement made no such disclosure; there was no cogent evidence with regard to ownership of that camera; and, even the reel was not developed to confi rm the allegations – In these circumstances, heavy burden lay on the department to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the plea of guilty was recorded after due compliance of the procedure prescribed and the confession was made voluntarily – More so, when the record of evidence contained no worthwhile evidence regarding the guilt of the constable, the SSFC ought to have advised the petitioner to withdraw the plea of guilt – In view thereof, not a fi t case for interference in exercise of the jurisdiction u/Art. 136 – Constitution of India. [Paras 27, 28 and 35-39]Border Security Force Act, 1968 – s. 87 – General rules as to evidence – Proceedings before the Security Force Court – Applicability of the Evidence Act:Held: By virtue of s. 87 of the BSF Act, the general rules of evidenceas laid in the Evidence Act, subject to the provisions of the BSF Act, are applicable to all proceedings before Security Force Court – Thus, by virtue of s. 145 of the Evidence Act, witness may be cross examined as to previous statements made by him – Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 145. [Para 28]Border Security Force Rules, 1969 – r. 142(2) – Plea of guilty –Procedural safeguards u/r. 142(2):Held: Sub-rule (2) of r. 142 would indicate that on the accused pleading guilty, before a fi nding of “guilty” is recorded, the SSFC is required to ascertain whether the accused understands the nature and meaning of the charge to which he has pleaded guilty as also must be informed of the general eff ect of that plea and of the diff erence in procedure which will be made by the plea of guilty – Even if the accused pleads guilty, if it appears from the record or abstract of evidence or otherwise that the accused ought to plead not guilty, the SSFC is required to advise him to withdraw that plea – Strict adherence of the procedural safeguards laid down in sub-rule (2) of r. 142 is warranted before accepting a plea of guilty. [Paras 34 and 35]
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 802
Petitioner	Union Of India & Others
Respondent	Jogeshwar Swain
SCR	[2023] 12 S.C.R. 117
Judgement Date	2023-09-05
Case Number	8629-8630

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Union of India & Others Vs. Jogeshwar Swain

Please Log-in to view this content

Union of India Vs. B.n. Jha

Union of India & Anr. Vs. Dinesh Kumar

Yasodhar Kamat Vs. The Director General, Border Security Force and Others

The Director General, Border Security Force and Ors. Vs. Deenamma Sandel

Union of India and Others Vs. Ex-constable Amrik Singh

Union of India and Others Vs. Ram Phal

Gouranga Chakraborty Vs. State of Tripura and Anr.

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Madhu E.v. & Anr

Union of India and Ors. Vs. Mudrika Singh

Union of India & Others Vs. Jogeshwar Swain

Union of India & Others Vs. Jogeshwar Swain

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Union of India Vs. B.n. Jha

Union of India & Anr. Vs. Dinesh Kumar

Yasodhar Kamat Vs. The Director General, Border Security Force and Others

The Director General, Border Security Force and Ors. Vs. Deenamma Sandel

Union of India and Others Vs. Ex-constable Amrik Singh

Union of India and Others Vs. Ram Phal

Gouranga Chakraborty Vs. State of Tripura and Anr.

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Madhu E.v. & Anr

Union of India and Ors. Vs. Mudrika Singh

Union of India & Others Vs. Jogeshwar Swain