Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal, JJ.
Karan Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6357 of 2021
Decided On : 12-07-2021
Dismissal - Border Security Force - BSF Act, 1968, Section 117 - Sections 20 and 26 - BSF Rules, 1969, Rule 63(2) and Rule 157
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Constable in the Border Security Force, challenged his dismissal from service due to charges of assaulting a superior officer, insubordination, and intoxication. The petitioner pleaded guilty and did not contest the charges during the Summary Security Force Court proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the procedural irregularity argued by the petitioner did not result in any prejudice. The court also noted that the petitioner's plea for leniency based on a past accident was not justified, and the dismissal from service was upheld.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's challenge to the dismissal from service based on procedural irregularities and plea for leniency due to a past accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's failure to contest the charges during the Summary Security Force Court proceedings and the lack of prejudice from the procedural irregularity did not warrant interference with the dismissal from service.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - Cm No. 20013/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant Rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 6357/2021 and CM No. 20012/2021 (for interim orders)
3. The petitioner, appointed as a Constable in the respondent Border Security Force (BSF) on 5th January, 2001, has filed this petition impugning the order dated 20th June, 2019 of the Inspector General of BSF of dismissal of the statutory petition under Section 117 of the BSF Act, 1968 (BSF Act), preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 9th January, 2019 of the Summary Security Force Court holding the petitioner guilty of the charges of (i) assaulting a superior officer, (ii) insubordination, and (iii) being intoxicated on duty and imposing the punishment under Sections 20 and 26 of the BSF Act on the petitioner of dismissal from service.
4. Considering the action impugned, the delay of more than 2 years in preferring this petition indicates that the petitioner, though dismissed from service, is not seriously affected thereby.
5. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to page 109 of the e-file, being the letter dated 23rd December, 2018 of the Commandant, BSF to the petitioner as under:-
| "No. Estt./03 Bn/Disc/SSFC/CT Karan/18/19472-74 Headquarters, 3 Bn BSF To,
Sub: SUMMARY SECURITY FORCE COURT (i) U/s 20(a) - ASSAULTING HIS SUPERIOR OFFICER
2. This is to inform you that under provision to BSF Rule 157 during trial at a Summary Security Force Court you may take assistance of any person including a legal practitioner as you may consider necessary provided that such person shall not examine or cross examination witness or address the court. 3. Under the provision of BSF Rule 63(2) you are hereby directed to intimate name of one of the available officer of this unit who will remain present throughout the trial as friend of the accused. Your reply should to reach to the undersigned by 1st Jan 2019 positively. |
and has argued, that Rule 63(2) of the BSF Rules, 1969 (BSF Rules) referred to in para 3 of the aforesaid communication is not applicable to the Summary Security Force Court, in light of Rule 63(6) of the BSF Rules and it is Rule 157 of the BSF Rules which is applicable. It is contended that thus the direction to the petitioner in para 3 of the letter aforesaid, to intimate name of one of the available officers of the unit who would remain present throughout the trial, as friend of the petitioner, was contrary to the Rules and owing thereto, the findings of the Summary Security Force Court are liable to be set aside and the Inspector General of respondent BSF has not considered the said aspect and wrongly rejected the statutory petition of the petitioner.
6. We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, whether the petitioner, in his statutory petition to the Inspector General, took the aforesaid plea.
7. The counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the said plea was not taken and has been taken in this petition for the first time.
8. We have drawn the attention of the counsel for the petitioner to para 2 of the letter dated 23rd December, 2018 aforesaid, where the petitioner has been informed of Rule 157 of the BSF Rules and been given an opportunity required to be given thereunder. We have further enquired from the counsel for the pe
The court upheld the dismissal from service based on the lack of prejudice from procedural irregularities and the petitioner's failure to contest the charges during the Summary Security Force Court p....
Disciplinary actions within the Border Security Force must uphold strict standards of conduct, and procedural grievances not raised timely do not warrant overturning a dismissal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents followed the mandate of the BSF Act, 1968 and the Rules of 1969 in conducting the proceedings against the petitioner, leading ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings conducted in accordance with the BSF Act and Rules, and the plea of guilty entered by the petitioner during the Summary Securi....
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner based on the past conduct and found no procedural irregularities in the dismissal process.
The main legal point established is that the dismissal of a member from service under Section 11(2) of the BSF Act, 1968 can be justified based on repeated instances of indiscipline and offenses, con....
The Summary Security Force Court lacked jurisdiction to try civil offences under Section 46 of the BSF Act, except for simple hurt or theft, as per Rule 47 of BSF Rules.
Dismissal proceedings must adhere to the prescribed procedures, and the recording of a plea of guilty must comply with Rule 142(2) of the BSF Rules of 1969.
The court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline in a force and upheld the penalty of dismissal from service based on the serious nature of the charges.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
