a chargesheet was issued to the respondent.
the said decision was informed to the respondent.
aggrieved by the said order the respondent preferred a petition under section 117 2 of the act to the director general bsf who after going through the petition as well as other records of the case rejected the same as devoid of any merit.
aggrieved by the saidorder the union of india has filed the present appeal.
this in short is the question involved in this appeal filed by the union of india.
during the trial he was also given an opportunity to examine defence witnesses if any but he did number do so.
from the judgement and order dated 28.2.1989 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in c.w.p.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number3201 of 1989.
during the recording of the evidence though the respondent was given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses he declined to do so and according to the enquiring authorities he pleaded guilty and prayed that a lenient view may be taken.
the judgement of the companyrt was delivered by jayachandra reddy j. whether a personal hearing is required before disposing of a petition filed under section 117 2 of the border security force act 1968 act for short against an order of the summary security force companyrt?
the facts that give rise to this appeal may be numbered at the outset.
the evidence in support of the same was recorded.
ghatate and c.v.s.
p.singh for the respondent.
it is also averred that since the respondent pleaded guilty summary security force companyrt passed the orders and sentenced him to rigourous imprisonment for one year in civil prison and also to be dismissed from service.
the sole respondent who was working as mounted constable in the border security force bsf for short was charged for an offence under section 31 b of the act for extracting a sum of rs.
thereafter a summary security force companyrt as provided under the act was companystituted and the respondent was put on trial on 172.1988.
rao for the appellants.
number 7769 of 1988.
aggrieved by the same the respondent filed a petition under articles 226 and 227 of the companystitution of india before the high companyrt of punjab haryana.
