Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Saurabh Banerjee, JJ.
Ex. Sub. R. K. Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 13629 of 2004
Decided On : 20-02-2024
GSFC Trial - Disciplinary Proceedings - BSF Act, 1968, Section 46, Section 40 - The court discussed the disciplinary proceedings under the BSF Act, 1968, specifically focusing on Section 46 and Section 40. The interpretation of the legal provisions related to committing a civil offence and an act prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force influenced the court's decision to dismiss the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the Border Security Force, was tried by a General Security Force Court (GSFC) for charges under the BSF Act, 1968. The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and the punishment awarded was commensurate with the gravity of the offenses. The court dismissed the petition, stating that there was no scope for interference under Article 226 of The Constitution of India.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's challenge to the GSFC trial proceedings, rejection of statutory petitions, and the alleged violation of BSF Rule 99(1) and Article 14 of The Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the disciplinary proceedings were fair and impartial, and there was no element of bias, unfairness, mala fide, arbitrariness, or unreasonableness. The court emphasized that it was not a fact-finding authority and refrained from reappreciating the evidence.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court emphasized the limited scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, clarifying that it does not function as a second appellate authority in disciplinary proceedings, nor does it reappreciate evidence or reassess factual findings unless there is a clear violation of procedural principles or fundamental justice (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The case involved a petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the Border Security Force, who was tried by a General Security Force Court (GSFC) for charges under the BSF Act, 1968, including criminal misconduct and acts prejudicial to good order and discipline (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law, and the punishment awarded was deemed appropriate to the gravity of the offenses. The court found no element of bias, unfairness, mala fide conduct, or arbitrariness in the proceedings (!) (!) .
The petitioner’s challenge to the proceedings, including claims of procedural violations and the alleged vengeful motives behind initiating disciplinary action, was rejected as the court found no substantial grounds to interfere with the findings or the process (!) (!) (!) .
The court clarified that its role is not to act as a court of appeal or revision but to ensure that the disciplinary process was conducted lawfully, fairly, and in accordance with principles of natural justice. Since the proceedings were found to be lawful and fair, and evidence was properly considered, there was no justification for reappraisal of the evidence (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the petition, confirming that there was no violation of procedural safeguards or legal principles that would warrant interference, and upheld the validity of the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner (!) .
The decision underscores that courts should exercise restraint in disciplinary matters and only intervene in exceptional circumstances where procedural irregularities or violations of natural justice are evident (!) (!) .
The court also noted that the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the remittance of large sums of money to his relatives over an extended period, and the proceedings were conducted without bias or prejudice, further supporting the legitimacy of the disciplinary process (!) (!) (!) .
These points collectively highlight the court’s stance on limited judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing adherence to procedural fairness and the importance of not substituting factual assessments with appellate reappraisal unless clear violations are established.
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Banerjee, J. (Oral) - As per facts, the petitioner was appointed to the rank of Sub-Inspector (Direct Entry) in the Border Security Force [(hereinafter referred to as BSF)] on 14.12.1987. As per the petitioner, based on some anonymous complaints, a Staff Court of Inquiry [(hereinafter referred to as SCOI)] was conducted against him from 10.05.1999 to 27.10.1999. Thereafter, on 10.05.2000, the Commandant 33 Bn BSF, under whose command the petitioner was attached for disciplinary purposes, conducted a Record of Evidence [(hereinafter referred to as RoE)] against him from 27.05.2000 to 04.10.2000. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was tried by a General Security Force Court [(hereinafter referred to as GSFC)] from 16.01.2003 to 04.02.2003 for the following charges:
First Charge-Under Section 46, BSF Act, 1968: Committing a civil offence, that is to say, criminal misconduct, being public servant, found in possession of pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income for which he cannot satisfactorily account, an offence specified under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
In that he, while serving in JAD(G) team at Karimganj, Assam between Dec'97 and Oct'98 remitted an amount of Rs.2,01,150/-(Rupees Two Lakhs, One Thousand One Hundred and Fifty) only through bank drafts and cash, to his wife Smt. Usha Sharma at Bikaner is disproportionate to his known sources of income, which he could not satisfactorily account for.
Second Charge-Under Section 40, BSF Act, 1968: An act prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force.
In that he, at BOP Jabainpur on 1st Sept'98, while performing the duties of Offg JSO(G) BSF, Karimganj having come to know about seizure of goods which were being taken for smuggling in a car, improperly and without authority caused the said car to be released.
2. Pursuant to the GSFC trial, though the petitioner was acquitted for the second charge, he was convicted for the first charge and awarded the punishment of `dismissal from service'. Thereafter, both his confirmation petition and post-confirmation petition were rejected by the Competent Authorities.
3. It is thus that the petitioner by way of the present petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, seeks the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned GSFC trial proceedings vide which the petitioner has been sentenced to dismissal from service.
(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the order of respondents dated 19.12.2003, vide which the statutory petition of the petitioner has been rejected.
(iii) Hold and declare that the BSF Rule 99(1) is violative of Article 14 of The Constitution of India and as such struck down the same.
(iv) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to re-instate the petitionerin service with all consequential relief and full back wages from the date of re-instatement and retirement benefits from the date the petitioner would have superannuated had he not been wrongly dismissed from service.
(v) Direct the respondents to pay Subsistence Allowance at the enhanced rate of 75% after the first three months along with interest at market rate from the date due to the actual date of payment."
4. In view thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings were instituted against the petitioner at the behest of some personnel who had a vengeful attitude towards the petitioner as also that the RoE was conducted against the petitioner in complete contravention of Rule 45(b) and Rule 48 of the BSF Rules, 1969 [(hereinafter referred to as BSF Rules)].
5. Learned counsel further submits that the GSFC trial was conducted on the basis of the charge-sheet dated 04.01.2003 and since the same was totally different from the initial charge-sheet dated 10.0
The court's decision emphasized the limited scope of interference under Article 226 of The Constitution of India and the principle that the High Court shall not reappreciate the evidence or act as a ....
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 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.
Termination of service is permissible under Section 10 of the Border Security Force Act when the trial is deemed impracticable or inexpedient, especially after non-confirmation of charges by the Conf....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the co....
Punishments must be proportionate to the misconduct and not shock the conscience of the court.
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
