Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Manoj Jain, JJ.
Deepak - Appellant
Versus
Director General of Border Security Force And Ors - Respondent
W.P.(C) 11248 of 2023
Decided On : 14-12-2023
Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - Border Security Force Act - Section 354A IPC, Section 46 of Border Security Force Act, 1968 - The court examined the matter from the limited angle of violation of principles of natural justice and adherence to relevant statutory provisions. The court found no procedural irregularity or false implication, and dismissed the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Nursing Assistant in the Border Security Force, was accused of sexual harassment by a lady constable. He was tried by the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) and subsequently dismissed from service. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order, citing procedural flaws and violation of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no procedural irregularity or false implication, and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The issues included gross violation of principles of natural justice, procedural flaws, and false implication.
Ratio Decidendi: The court examined the matter from the limited angle of violation of principles of natural justice and adherence to relevant statutory provisions. It found no procedural irregularity or false implication, and dismissed the petition.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Jain, J. - Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 11.08.2022 passed by Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) whereby he has been directed to be dismissed from service. He also challenges order dated 30.06.2023 passed by Director General, Border Security Force (BSF) whereby his appeal has been dismissed.
2. As per the facts mentioned in the Writ Petition, petitioner joined BSF in the year 2008 and served at different places as constable. At the relevant time i.e. in the year 2022, he was posted at Border Outpost (BOP), Mohanpur with its Headquarters at Haringhat Farm, Nadia District, West Bengal. As a Nursing Assistant, his duty was to take care of the patients coming to the hospital. One lady constable made allegations of sexual harassment against him. Such allegations resulted in his suspension. Later on, he was tried by SSFC, presided over by his Commandant.
3. SSFC held him guilty and awarded him with sentence of dismissal from service.
4. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing an appeal before the Director General, BSF but it also did not find any favour.
5. It will be pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid appeal had been filed by the petitioner on 26.10.2022 but since he did not get any response about the outcome thereof, he filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Calcutta. Vide order dated 27.04.2023 passed by High Court of Calcutta in W.P.A. No. 144 of 2023, respondents were directed to decide the statutory appeal within two months As noted above, such statutory appeal was dismissed on 30.06.2023.
6. The impugned order of dismissal has been challenged, inter alia, on the following grounds:
i. There is gross violation of principles of natural justice and there are procedural flaws which renders the whole process of trial unsustainable in law;
ii. The original written complaint, which was foundation of the case of prosecution and which resulted in eventual dismissal of petitioner from service, was never placed before SSFC.
iii. His Commandant acted in dual capacity. He served him with charge-sheet and also conducted SSFC trial which is in violation of principle of natural justice as he should not have conducted the trial, being personally interested in the case.
iv. SSFC simply held the petitioner guilty but did not assign any reason whatsoever. Thus, the order of dismissal is cryptic and without any reason and, therefore, is liable to be set aside.
v. Petitioner has been falsely implicated and charges do not stand proved.
7. All such contentions have been refuted by respondents.
8. It has been argued by the respondents that the complainant has, in no uncertain terms, raised accusing finger towards the petitioner and the evidence led before SSFC proves commission of offence under Section 354A IPC, a civil offence under Section 46 of Border Security Force Act, 1968. It is also contended that though SSFC trial was with respect to the allegations of sexual harassment made by one particular lady constable, fact remains that besides her, one other lady constable also entered into witness box and deposed that even she was sexually harassed in similar manner. It is also contended that there are no procedural infirmities and no violation of any principle of natural justice and, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also supplemented that in the entire writ petition, petitioner has not whispered even a single word regarding his alleged act of sexual harassment which rather indicates that he does not dispute his complicity at all.
9. Before touching the aspect evidence led before SSFC, we need to remind ourselves that this Court cannot act as appellate court and reassess and reappraise the evidence. However, indubitably, if we come across any instance suggesting violation of principles of natural justice or gross violation of the laid down procedure or denial of fair trial, the intervention can be made exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The aspect of fair tria
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.
The sufficiency of evidence, compliance with procedural rules, and the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner were the central legal points established in the judgment.
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 ....
Judicial review under Article 226 extends to the examination of the decision-making process in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring the findings are rational and supported by credible evidence.
The plea of guilt must be recorded in accordance with the procedural rules, and the absence of the accused's signature on the minutes of the proceedings can impact the credibility of the plea.
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 held that the difference in punishment was not discriminatory as the SSFC had taken into account the previous convictions of the petitioner, while the co-accused had no previous convictions....
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
