The court's decision emphasized that unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority shocks the conscience of the Court, there is no scope for interference, and that the Tribunal/Court cannot act as a court of appeal and substitute its own view and findings by replacing the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the competent authority.

Headnote:
Dismissal - Armed Forces - Border Security Force Act, 1968, Section 117, Rule 167(2) of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 117 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 and Rule 167(2) of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, which limit the number of petitions a person aggrieved by any order passed by the Summary Security Force Court can present to the officers mentioned in Section 117. The court found that the penalty imposed on the petitioner was not disproportionate given the grave nature of the charges against the petitioner and dismissed the petition.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal from service based on charges of intoxication, misbehavior, possession of alcohol, possession of a mobile phone against instructions, and refusal to comply with medical test orders while on duty.
Finding of the Court:

The court found no merit in the petitioner's submission that the admission of guilt was forced and held that the charges of grave indiscipline were proved against the petitioner. The court also found the penalty imposed on the petitioner not to be disproportionate.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's alleged forced admission of guilt, the gravity of the charges of indiscipline, and the proportionality of the penalty imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the charges of grave indiscipline were proved against the petitioner and that the penalty imposed was not disproportionate.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 29.12.2020 passed by the Commandant 148 BN, Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as BSF), directing the dismissal of the petitioner from service; the order dated 13.04.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3, dismissing the representation of the petitioner against the above order of removal from service; and the order dated 09.06.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 wherein the representation of the petitioner for setting aside the impugned order dated 29.12.2021 was again dismissed on the ground that under Section 117 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 167(2) of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), a person aggrieved by any order passed by the Summary Security Force Court (hereinafter referred to as SSFC) can present only one petition to any of the officers mentioned in Section 117 of the Act and since the petitioner had already availed said opportunity by submitting a statutory petition to the respondent no. 3 which was duly considered, there is no provision to entertain another representation in the same regard.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that a hearing under Rules 45/45A/45B of the Rules was conducted against the petitioner on 18.12.2021 on six charges viz. (i) on 16.12.2020 at about 1845 hours while on duty the petitioner was found in a state of intoxication; (ii) on 16.12.2020 at about 1845 hours while on duty the petitioner misbehaved and abused Insp/Offg Coy Commander Sunil Yadav; (iii) on 16.12.2020 at about 1845 hours while on duty the petitioner used threatening language against Const/GD P M Rao; (iv) on 16.12.2020 at about 1845 hours while on duty the petitioner was found in unauthorized possession of a pouch of 180 ml Officer Choice whiskey; (v) on 16.12.2020 at about 1845 hours while on duty the petitioner was found in possession of mobile phone which is against the instructions and (vi) on 16.12.2020 at about 2130 hours while on duty the petitioner refused to sit in the ambulance for proceeding for his medical test despite order by SI Ganpat Lal to do so. The charges so framed were corroborated by six witnesses and vide order dated 18.12.2020, a Record of Evidence was directed to be prepared against the petitioner.

3. On 29.12.2020, after the preparation of the Record of Evidence, the SSFC was conducted against the petitioner wherein he was found guilty on all six of the aforementioned charges. The petitioner is alleged to have admitted to being guilty of the six charges hence, the order of dismissal from service was passed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was forced to enter plea of guilty on the six charges against him and on the basis of this forced plea of guilt entered by the petitioner, the SSFC held the petitioner to be guilty of the charges framed against him without recording any evidence whatsoever and awarded the sentence of dismissal from service to the petitioner. She further submits that the petitioner did put on record his version of the events by admitting to consuming liquor on 16.12.2020 as he claimed to be under duress due to his fathers hospitalization and was not aware of what happened. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this admission is only with respect to the first charge framed against the petitioner, that is, intoxication, and not qua the remaining five charges. Placing reliance on the judgment dated 11.07.2011 of this court in Ashok Kumar v. DG. BSF & Ors. (W.P. (C) 2145/1998) she submits that the petitioner was suffering from mental tension and therefore, deserved leniency. She submits that the punishment of dismissal from service is therefore, disproportionate.

5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and find no merit in the same.

6. The charges found against the petitioner to b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document