The Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of Rule 20 of the Border Security Force Rules, establishing that both the Central Government and the Director General have the authority to act under the rule, and that procedural compliance is essential for lawful removal of officers.

JUDGMENT:

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted in S.L.P.(C) 21363/2005 @ CC No.6855 of 1999.

2. Both these appeals have matrix in a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Ashok Kumar, the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 1999 and the appellant in the connected appeal. For the sake of convenience said Ashok Kumar is described hereinafter as the ’delinquent officer’. By the impugned judgment the High Court held that the removal of the delinquent officer from service was in violation of the provisions contained in Section 10 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (in short ’the Act’) read with Rule 20 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (in short ’the Rules). The appeal filed by the delinquent officer was allowed upsetting the judgment of the learned Single Judge who had dismissed the writ petition filed by the delinquent officer.

3. Factual position, filtering out unnecessary details, is as follows:

4. There was a raid in the house of militants on 23rd and 24th March, 1992. The delinquent officer being Deputy Inspector General in Command was having Supervisory power over the Commandant who raided the hideout of militants. On the night intervening 23rd and 24th March 1992 house of one Mohd. Maqbool Dhar in Bemina Colony of Srinagar was raided by 23 men of the force. During the raid two militants described as ’dreaded militants’ namely Javed Ahmed Shalla and Mohd. Siddiqui Soffi were apprehended. According to the authorities huge quantity of arms, ammunitions and explosives and household articles including gold ornaments were recovered. The recovery of arms, ammunition and explosives and gold ornaments were not reflected in the seizure report sent to higher authorities. Respondent was not present at the spot and he indicated his presence at the scene of operation with a view to claim undue credit of achievements of the operation. Full quantity of seized articles was not reflected in the report. 31 major weapons were recovered but only 22 were shown. Two pistols, five AK-56 rifles, one rocket launcher and one Telescopic Rifle were not shown in the list of ammunition. Out of 31 gold ornaments 25 pieces were not shown in the list of seized articles. Second situation Report was also sent, but the same also did not reflect recovery of complete articles. To cover up these lapses another encounter was shown to have taken place and a report regarding fake encounter was sent vide No.0-7209 which indicated the recovery of some gold ornaments. Another report was also sent from office of delinquent officer declaring goods which were not declared earlier. It was admitted that recovery of some weapons was not reflected in earlier report.

5. Therefore, a Staff Court of Inquiry was ordered to be held on 16th May, 1992 and the delinquent officer was found responsible for following act of omission and commission:

(a) Falsely showing his presence at the scene of operation and search.

(b) Failure to make any observations regarding serious omissions and discrepancies in the unit site report and detailed report.

(c) Suppression of information regarding seizure of six weapons out of nine which were not declared by the Commandant.

(d) Suppression of information regarding seizure of household items.

(e) Suppression of information regarding seizure of a substantial quantity of gold ornaments.

(f) Failure in supervisory duties by not giving expected directions to the Commandant in regard to accounting and disposal of seized items.

6. On 18.9.1992 Director General recorded his satisfaction that the material witnesses connected with case will not be available and as such the trial of the delinquent officer before Security Force Court was inexpedient and impracticable and opined that further retention of the delinquent officer in service was undesirable.

7. On 23/25.9.1992 show-cause notice was served upon the delinquent officer as to why his services be not terminated in accordance with Rule 20