IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present :- Hon’ble Justice Amrita Sinha WPA 840 of 2024 Md. Farhad Zaman Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

For the writ petitioner :- Mr. Ujjal Ray, Adv.

Sk. Abdur Rahim, Adv.

Mr. Atreya Chakraborty, Adv.

For the Union of India :- Mr. Kalyan Kumar Chakraborty, Adv.

Mr. Uttam Basak, Adv.

Heard on :- 24.03.2026 Judgment on :- 09.04.2026 Amrita Sinha, J.:-

1. The petitioner was a member of the Border Security Force (BSF). He has been dismissed from service by the Commandant of his battalion vide order dated 2^nd December, 2023 with effect from the said date. The petitioner has been found to be involved in getting illegal gratification from job aspirants during the detailed medical examination for declaring them ‘fit’ for recruitment of Constable (general duty) examination-2018 in CAPFs, NIA, SSF and Assam Rifle along with other BSF persons and civilians in Malda in the month of January-February, 2020.

2. He was charged under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended. Proceeding against him is sub judice before the Court of the learned Special Judge (CBI), Siliguri. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice as to why he should not be dismissed from service on account of misconduct. Not being satisfied with the explanation provided by the petitioner, he has been dismissed from service. The Commandant was of the opinion that as CBI investigation was ongoing and as several civilians were involved in the offence, his trial under the BSF Act and Rules is inexpedient.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same and has challenged the order of dismissal in the instant writ petition.

4. Submission of the petitioner is that subjective satisfaction of the Commandant has not been recorded that the petitioner was actually involved in the allegation of obtaining illegal gratification. As the petitioner is yet to be convicted in the criminal case that is pending, accordingly, the authority ought not to have passed order for his dismissal.

5. It has been submitted that the petitioner ought to have been tried by the Security Force Court so that he could have got the opportunity to put forth his evidence in support of his defence.

6. It has been submitted that though the petitioner was served with a show cause notice, but the documents enclosed with the said notice were never served upon him.

7. It has been contended that no reason has been recorded in the impugned order as to why it will not be expedient to try the petitioner before the Security Force Court. In the absence of a proper finding recording reason as to why a member of the Force will be dismissed without a proper trial, the order of dismissal suffers from procedural irregularity.

8. It has been argued that the authority passed order of dismissal without proper application of mind, by overlooking the provisions of the Act and the corresponding Rules.

9. Prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order of dismissal and further directing reinstatement of the petitioner along with all back wages and notional seniority.

10. In support of the aforesaid prayer learned advocate for the petitioner relies on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Baldeb Raj Chadha vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1980) 4 SCC 321 wherein the Court held that when an order is challenged and its validity depends on it being supported by public interest, the State must disclose the material to satisfy the Court that the order is not bad for want of any material to sustain the ground of ‘public interest’ justifying forced retirement of a public servant.

11. According to the petitioner, no material has been placed before the authority or before this Court to justify that retention of the petitioner in the Force is undesirable. In the absence of any such material, the capital punishment of dismissal from service ought not to have been passed.

12. Reliance has also been pl