Dismissal without a formal inquiry under the BSF Act is justified if it's found impracticable due to security concerns. Authority must record reasons, but discretion remains with the competent authority.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 04.06.2021 passed by the Inspector General, Rajasthan Frontier, Border Security Force, Mandore Road, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as "IG Raj. Frontier"), dismissing the representation preferred by the petitioner in challenge to the order dated 30.11.2020 passed by the respondent no. 3, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service in exercise of power under Section 11 (2) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") read with Rule 177 and Rule 22 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). The petitioner further challenges the order dated 18.08.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 04.06.2021 on the ground of same being not maintainable.

2. The petitioner had joined the Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as "BSF") as a Constable on 20.01.2002. On an allegation that on 23.11.2020 at about 1337 hours, while being deployed at BOP Kalka of 114 Bn BSF, the petitioner had taken his mobile phone on duty and contacted a suspected Pakistan Intelligence Operative (hereinafter referred to as "PIO") and that during a search of his belonging he was found in possession of four mobile phones and five SIM cards, a Staff Court of Inquiry (hereinafter referred to as "SCOI") was ordered by SHQ BSF Bikaner, vide order dated 27.11.2020. The SCOI had confirmed the abovesaid allegations and found the petitioner guilty of remaining in contact with the said PIO since 2018 and regularly conversing with him on messenger account; establishing a voice call from his registered mobile number with the said PIO on 23.11.2020 at 1337 hours while being deployed in OP Duty of BOP Kalka and having a conversation of eight minutes forty-six seconds with the said PIO; and possessing four mobile phones and five SIM cards and regularly carrying said mobile phones during duty hours, day and night, in contravention of the Standard Operating Procedures and Instructions. The respondent no. 3 found that the above conduct of the petitioner was prejudicial to national security and to the force discipline and his further retention in service was undesirable in the national interest. The respondent no. 3 further found that an opportunity of showing cause to the petitioner and his likely reply may disclose many minute operational and deployment related secret information, examination/scrutiny of which by non-authorized persons will jeopardize the security of International border for which reason petitioner's trial by a Security Force Court is also inexpedient. Based on the above opinion and in exercise of powers under Section 11 (2) of the Act read with Rule 177 and Rule 22 of the Rules, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 30.11.2020 passed by the respondent no. 3.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved of the above order filed representations dated 30.01.2021 and 04.02.2021 thereagainst.

4. The petitioner then filed a Writ Petition before this Court being W.P. (C) 3041/2021, titled Kishore Chandra Sahoo v. Director General Border Security Force & Ors., praying for a direction to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to decide petitioner's representations. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 0