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.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

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

82 Miles Nalkata

Tripura - 799266

Dated the 23rd Dec. 2018

To,

Sr. 010035120

CONST.(GD) KARAN SINGH

"A" COY

Sub: SUMMARY SECURITY FORCE COURT

I propose to try you by holding a Summary Security Force Court on 07 Jan 2019 in the office of the COMMANDANT, 3 Bn BSF at Bn HQ 82 Miles, Nalkata, Tripura for following offence under BSF Act 1968 as committed by you:-

(i) U/s 20(a) -ASSAULTING HIS SUPERIOR OFFICER

(ii) U/s 20(c) -USING INSUBORDINATE LANGUAGE TO HIS SUPERIOR OFFICER

(iii) U/s 26 -INTOXICATION

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.

Sd/-

COMMANDANT

03 BN BSF"

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 Decem