1991 (1) TMI 437 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a personal hearing is required before disposing of a petition filed u/s 117(2) of The Border Security Force Act, 1968 against an order of the Summary Security Force Court.
2. Whether the principles of natural justice apply to the disposal of such petitions.

Summary:

Issue 1: Personal Hearing Requirement u/s 117(2) of The Border Security Force Act, 1968
The respondent, a Mounted Constable in the BSF, was charged u/s 31(b) of the Act for extracting Rs. 14,000 without proper authority. After being tried by the Summary Security Force Court, he was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and dismissed from service. The respondent filed a petition u/s 117(2) to the Director-General, BSF, which was rejected without a personal hearing. The High Court directed a fresh hearing, prompting the Union of India to appeal. The Supreme Court examined whether a personal hearing is obligatory under Section 117(2). It was noted that the statute does not expressly mandate a personal hearing, and the respondent did not request one in his petition.

Issue 2: Application of Principles of Natural Justice
The Supreme Court discussed the doctrine of natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem rule, which is part of Article 14. The Court referred to several precedents, including *Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India* and *State of Haryana v. Ram Krishan*, emphasizing that natural justice principles apply to administrative orders affecting citizens' rights. However, it was also noted that these principles could be excluded in exceptional circumstances where urgency or administrative efficiency is paramount. The Court cited *Som Datt Datta v. Union of India* and *Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter*, which held that personal hearings are not always required, especially under special statutes like the Army Act, which is in pari materia with the BSF Act. The Court concluded that the principles of natural justice do not necessitate a personal hearing for petitions u/s 117(2) of the Act, as the respondent was tried following due process, and the post-confirmation petition does not attract these principles.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter back for disposal on merits, holding that the disposal of a petition u/s 117(2) does not require a personal hearing and is not subject to the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.