1. The petitioner, after initial appointment in the year-1986 as Constable (GD) in the Border Security Force (BSF) was promoted to the post of Head Constable in the year, 2000. In July- 2003, the petitioner was driving the vehicle No. PB-08C-2140/TATA 5 Ton carrying 16 passengers from Dharmkund and when he reached Kud, the vehicle fell down the road due to which, Head Constable Lalit Kumar Toppo and Constable Mr. Deepak Kumar Deep lost their lives, and 14 others sustained injuries. The Summary Court of Inquiry was conducted, and it was decided that the strict legal action be taken against the petitioner for rash and negligent driving resulting in loss of two precious lives and further 50% cost of total damage i.e. Rs. 92,821.50 be recovered from the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents conducted Petty Security Force Court(PSFC) Proceedings against the petitioner on three charges and the petitioner was found guilty of all three charges under section 46 of the Border Security Force, Act (for short ‘the BSF Act’) and was punished with one month imprisonment in force custody and reduction to the rank of Constable. This order, however, was subject to confirmation by the Confirming Authority. Thereafter, respondents issued order dated 07.05.2007, whereby they fixed the re- assembling of PSFC on 18.05.2007. The petitioner filed the writ petition and challenged the order dated 07.05.2007 being aggrieved of re-assembly of PSFC. Thereafter, the proceedings of PSFC were rescheduled for 30.05.2007 and ultimately, vide order dated 30.05.2007, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was enhanced and he was directed to suffer imprisonment for three months and reduced to the rank of constable. Besides, forfeiture of two years past service for the purpose of pension was also ordered.

2. The petitioner being aggrieved of order dated 30.05.2007 has filed this petition for quashing the same on various grounds including that the petitioner could not have been punished twice for the same offence. The petitioner was earlier sentenced to one month imprisonment and reduction in rank to constable from Head Constable and thereafter he was punished with three punishments vide order dated 30.05.2007.

3. The respondents have filed the response stating therein that on account of incident that took place on 17.07.2003, two individuals, namely, Lalit Kumar Toppo-Head Constable and Mr. Deepak Kumar Deep-Constable lost their lives, and 14 others sustained injuries. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted in two parts, first part was to ascertain the death and injuries caused to Government servant whether attributable to Government duty and second part to cover loss/damage to Government property as well as fixing the responsibility for accident/lapses.

4. As per the instructions of the competent authority of the Staff Court of Inquiry proceedings, strict legal action was to be taken against the petitioner for rash and negligent driving resulting in loss of two precious lives and 50% cost of total damage i.e. 92,821.50 was to be recovered from the petitioner and remaining 50% amount was to be borne by the State. In respect of the legal action, the petitioner was tried by PSFC held at HQ 65 Bn BSF w.e.f. 22.01.2007 to 09.02.2007 on three charges and subsequently PSFC reassembled on 30.05.2007. The petitioner was found guilty on three charges under Section 46 of the BSF Act and was awarded sentence of one month imprisonment in force custody and reduction in rank to the post of constable. The findings and the sentence were subject to confirmation by the Confirming Authority, and the Confirming Authority before confirming findings and sentence ordered PSFC to reassemble for revisiting the sentence and accordingly revision trial was held on 30.05.2007 and after taking into consideration all the matters relating to revision of sentence, the court revoked its earlier sentence and further awarded sentence to the accused/petitioner in the following manner:

"(i) To suffer imprisonment for three months in force custody

(ii) To be reduced to the rank of Constable, and

(iii) To forfeit two years past service for the purpose of pension."

5. After confirmation, the findings and sentence were promulgated upon the petitioner on 31.07.2007 by the Commandant 65th Bn. BSF. The petitioner was entitled to prefer post confirmation petition to DG BSF against the findings and sentence of the PSFC in terms of provisions of section 117(2) of the BSF Act but he did not avail the same and straightway approached this Court. The respondents have stated that in terms of section 113 of the Act read with Rule 105 of the BSF Rules, the Confirming Authority directed reassembling of the PSFC to reconsider the sentence awarded by the Court. It is stated that the petitioner was found guilty of all the three charges which were very serious in nature, particularly when death of two persons was caused, and 14 other persons were injured, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner had consumed the liquor while driving specially knowing fully well that he was driving in hilly terrain. While negotiating a sharp U turn, where a greater amount of caution was required by the petitioner, he looked backwards, thereby putting lives of all the persons travelling in vehicle, in grave danger. It is stated that in compliance to the BSF Rule 105(4)(b), PSFC reconsidered the sentence awarded earlier, and passed sentence afresh. The respondents have denied the allegations levelled by the petitioner in respect of procedural infractions on the part of the respondents.

6. Though the petitioner has raised number of grounds complaining the procedural infractions on the part of the respondents, but during her submissions, Ms. Surinder Kour, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has restricted the grounds of challenge to order dated 30.05.2007 only to the extent that the petitioner has been punished twice for the same offence. Therefore, this Court has not taken note of other grounds urged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

7. Ms. S. Kour, Senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that once the petitioner was sentenced by the PSFC with reduction of rank to the post of constable and imprisonment of one month, the second trial could not have been held by PSFC, resulting into three harsher punishments.

8. Per contra, Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI has argued that the petitioner was initially sentenced and punished by PSFC with one month imprisonment and reduction to the rank of Constable from Head Constable but the Confirming Authority did not accept the sentence awarded to the petitioner because the charges were grave in nature, as two persons had died and 14 others were injured in the incident. Accordingly, the Confirming Authority directed for revision of sentence in terms of section 113 of the BSF Act and in compliance to Rule 105 of the BSF Rules, the sentence was revised and enhanced.

9. Heard and perused the record.

10. At first blush, the contention raised by the petitioner that the trial was conducted by PSFC twice, resulting into punishments on two different occasions, appears to be very attractive but on a deeper scrutiny, it is found that the contention raised by the petitioner is misconceived.

11. This is not denied that the petitioner was initially convicted and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment and reduction to the post of Constable from Head Constable, but it is the contention of the respondents that the findings and the sentence awarded by the PSFC were subject to confirmation by the Confirming Authority. The petitioner has not been able to dispute the contention of the respondents that the findings of PSFC and the sentence awarded, were subject to confirmation by the Confirming Authority.

12. Section 113 of the BSF Act is extracted as under:

"113. Revision of finding or sentence.—(1) Any finding or sentence of a Security Force Court which requires confirmation may be once revised by order of the confirming authority and on such revision, the court, if so directed by the confirming authority, may take additional evidence.

(2) The court, on revision, shall consist of the same officers as were present when the original decision was passed, unless any of those officers are unavoidably absent.

(3) In case of such unavoidable absence the cause thereof shall be duly certified in the proceedings, and the court shall proceed with the revision, provided that, if a General Security Force Court, it still consists of five officers, or, if a Petty Security Force Court, of three officers."

13. A perusal of the section 113 of the BSF Act reveals that any findings/sentence of the Security Force Court which requires confirmation may be once revised by the order of the Confirming Authority and the court while revising the sentence, shall consist of same officers as were present when the original decision was passed unless any of those officers are unavoidably absent. Thus, in the instant case, the Confirming Authority in terms of section 113 of the Act has directed the revision of the sentence by the PSFC. Further, Rule 105(4)(b) of the BSF Rules provides that the court can reconsider its sentence and if it does not adhere to the sentence already awarded, revoke the sentence and pass sentence afresh.

14. In the instant case vide order dated 30.05.2007, the PSFC revoked its earlier order and sentenced the petitioner with the punishment as mentioned above and this Court is satisfied that the PFSC had exercised its power of revision pursuant to the order of Confirming Authority in terms of mandate of Rule 105(4)(b) of the BSF Rules, 1968.

15. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly, dismissed.