Back
'Iron Hand' on Corruption: Calcutta HC Backs 's Swift Dismissal of Constable in Recruitment Bribery Racket
In a stern affirmation of discipline in India's border-guarding forces, the has dismissed a by former constable Md. Farhad Zaman, upholding his dismissal for allegedly taking bribes to rig medical fitness certificates during the Constable (GD) recruitment drive. Justice Amrita Sinha ruled on , emphasizing that such misconduct strikes at the heart of national security, justifying dismissal without a full trial.
From Border Duty to Bribery Allegations: How the Scam Unfolded
Zaman, deployed at Dhanakgiri, Meghalaya, in , was accused of colluding with Senior Medical Officer Dr. Lokeshwar Khajuria and civilians to declare unfit job aspirants "fit" for roles in , , , and . Deals reportedly fetched ₹2 lakh per candidate, with ₹80,000 routed through Zaman's non-salary account before further transfers. Bank statements corroborated the money trail, WhatsApp chats were deleted, and Zaman allegedly threatened families for silence.
A complaint triggered an FIR under and . 's Commandant dismissed him on , deeming an SFC trial "inexpedient" due to civilian involvement, after a . Zaman challenged this via WPA 840 of 2024, seeking reinstatement with back wages.
Petitioner's Cry: 'No Trial, No Justice?'
Zaman argued the dismissal lacked recorded " ," violated by withholding documents, and bypassed mandatory SFC trial under Rules. Without conviction in the pending case before the , he claimed premature "capital punishment." He cited Baldeb Raj Chadha v. Union of India (1980) for needing public interest material, Sat Pal Singh v. Union of India (2006) for compliance, and Sees Ram v. Union of India (1996) against procedural shortcuts.
Strikes Back: Civilians Make Trial Impossible
Respondents, via Deputy Inspector General's affidavit, detailed the conspiracy involving multiple aspirants, doctors, and civilians. They stressed SFC's inability to examine civilian evidence, making piecemeal trials impractical. Zaman got full charge details and replied unsatisfactorily. Citing Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985), they affirmed post-notice opportunity sufficed, with overwhelming evidence like money trails warranting dismissal to protect border security.
Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: Security Trumps Sympathy
Justice Sinha dissected precedents, distinguishing them: Baldeb Raj Chadha limits review to rational material—here, "materials galore" existed. Sat Pal Singh and Sees Ram involved deserters without proper process; this case had consistent notice and order. Tulsiram Patel confirmed hearing adequacy.
Crucially,
Act applies only to force members—civilians necessitate ordinary courts.
"Investigation and trial of the case cannot be done in a piecemeal manner,"
she noted, rejecting expediency lapses.
Key Observations
"Employing unfit candidates in lieu of money would jeopardize the security of the nation."
"Any sympathy or leniency shown to this type of member is bound to send out a wrong signal to the Force and the society at large. Illegality of such nature cannot be accepted in the Force at all and the same is to be dealt with an iron hand as soon as the same is detected."
"Retaining a person in the Force against whom such grave allegations are pending trial, will certainly be undesirable. All members of the Force ought to maintain the highest level of honesty and integrity."
"No prudent man with rational mind would agree to retain a uniformed officer in service charged with the allegation of accepting gratification in lieu of obtaining ‘fit’ certificate to secure job in the Force."
No Interference: Petition Dismissed, Integrity Upheld
"The
fails and is hereby dismissed,"
Justice Sinha concluded, with no costs. This ruling reinforces that grave allegations alone, backed by
, justify dismissal in security forces, especially sans conviction. It signals zero tolerance for recruitment corruption, potentially streamlining disciplinary actions where civilians complicate trials— a boon for force discipline but a reminder of due process limits.
As news reports highlight, the decision underscores demoralization risks from retaining accused members, ensuring "highest standards" for border guardians.
