Q: Elaborate the relevancy of citation of Ranjit Thakur v. Union Of India And Others ,Supreme Court Of India, Oct 15, 1987 with present case ?

Ans: Ranjit Thakur v. Union Of India And Others ,Supreme Court Of India, Oct 15, 1987

Appellant, Ranjit Thakur, joined the Armed Services on September 7, 1972, and was, at the relevant time, a Signalman in “4 Corps Operating Signal Regiment”. Apparently, appellant had not commended himself well to Respondent 4, who was the commanding officer of the regiment. On March 29, 1985, appellant was already serving out a sentence of 28 days' rigorous imprisonment imposed on him for violating the norms for presenting representations to higher officers. Appellant is stated to have sent representation complaining ill-treatment at the hands of Respondent 4 directly to the higher officers. Appellant was punished for that by Respondent 4.

Army Act Section 41(2) Disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer In that he at 15.30 hrs. on May 29, 1985 when ordered by JC 106251-P Sub Ram Singh, the Orderly Officer of the same Regiment to eat his food, did not do so.

To try this offence a summary court-martial was assembled the very next day i.e March 30, 1985. Respondent 4 and two others were on the court-martial. Some witnesses were examined. Appellant is stated to have pleaded guilty. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year was imposed, in pursuance of which appellant was removed immediately to the civil prison at Tejpur to serve out the sentence. 

The High Court, however, persuaded itself to dismiss, in limine, appellant's writ petition challenging the proceedings of the summary court-martial.

The honourable Supreme Court held

In the present case the punishment is so strikingly disproportionate as to call for and justify interference. It cannot be allowed to remain uncorrected in judicial review.

 In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court is set aside, the writ petition preferred in the High Court allowed and the impugned proceedings of the summary court-martial dated March 30, 1985, and the consequent order and sentence are quashed. The appellant is entitled to and shall be reinstated with all monetary and service benefits. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

Relevancy with our case:

In above mentioned case , the honourable Supreme Court held that the dismissal from service is too harsh punishment for misconduct .

In Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1983 2 SCC 442 this Court held: [SCC p. 453, SCC (L&S) p. 353, para 15]35

“It is equally true that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.”

Thus, in our case , the bsf personnel fired in bushes having the thrilling sensation of patriotism and such excitement is often seen in youngsters even if it is contravention of discipline. 

So, the bsf personnel must be reinstated considering the principles of natural justice.