Mandatory compliance with Rule 142(2) of BSF Rules requires informing the accused of dismissal as a consequence of pleading guilty.

The Petitioner, a Constable in the Border Security Force (BSF) since 2008, was charged with firing one round from his INSAS rifle without provocation and being in a state of intoxication while on duty on April 29, 2021.

Following a Record of Evidence (RoE), a Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) was convened on June 21, 2021.

During the trial, the Petitioner purportedly pleaded "Guilty" to both charges.

Consequently, the SSFC dismissed him from service.

The Petitioner’s statutory appeal was rejected by the Inspector General on December 26, 2021, on the grounds that he had voluntarily pleaded guilty and had a poor past disciplinary record.

The Petitioner challenged these orders, alleging procedural irregularities and a violation of Rule 142(2) of the BSF Rules, 1969.

Whether the "Plea of Guilty" recorded by the SSFC was valid and in compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards under Rule 142(2) of the BSF Rules, 1969?

Whether the Petitioner understood the consequences of his plea, specifically regarding the potential for dismissal from service?

The Court primarily applied Rule 142(2) of the BSF Rules, 1969, which mandates that before recording a plea of "Guilty," the Court must ascertain that the accused understands the nature of the charge and inform him of the general effect of the plea and the difference in procedure.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent Union of India & Ors. v. Jogeshwar Swain, which established that strict adherence to Rule 142(2) is warranted to prevent "uninformed confessions" or pleas made under a "false hope" of escaping severe punishment.

The Court also referenced Amarjeet Singh v. Union of India & Anr. (2024), reinforcing that failure to explain the specific consequence of dismissal vitiates the trial.

The Court observed that while the SSFC record used "verbatim reproduction" of statutory language regarding Rule 142(2), it failed to demonstrate that the Petitioner was actually informed of the "broad consequences" of his plea, namely dismissal.

The Court noted that in response to Question 4, the Petitioner stated he would "not commit mistake again" and requested to be "punished less severely" so he could repay loans and support his family.

This indicated the Petitioner pleaded guilty under the bona fide but mistaken impression that doing so would help him secure his job.

The Court found that the SSFC acted as a mere formality and failed its duty to advise the Petitioner to withdraw the plea when his statement contradicted an unconditional admission of guilt intended to lead to dismissal.

The Court quashed the dismissal order dated June 21, 2021, and the appellate order dated December 26, 2021.

The Respondents were directed to reinstate the Petitioner with all consequential benefits, including back wages with interest @ 6% per annum.