IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay W.P.A. 13867 of 2009 Md. Rashid -Vs-

Union of India & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kallol Basu Mr. Nilanjan Pal For the Union of India : Mr. Anirban Mitra Heard on : 14.01.2026 Judgment on : 06.02.2026 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. The petitioner enrolled as an Engine Driver in the Border Security Force on

20.08.1995 posted at different formations under the Frontier Headquarters, BSF, North Bengal. In June 2007, he was adjusted with 127 Battalion, BSF and Operational Sector described on record as highly sensitive from the stand-point of cross-border smuggling activities.

2. While so deployed, a written complaint was received from the Company Commander, Shri Pratap Singh, Assistant Commandant, alleging the petitioner had acted in connivance with the smugglers operating near the international border. It was alleged that on 17th October, 2007 while posted at BOP Gitaldah of 127 Battalion near Kashim Ghat on the banks of the Dharla River, the petitioner along with Constable R.L. Kamath (co-accused) accepted illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- and provided safe passage to smugglers for transporting 350 bottles of Phensedyl contained in seven packets from India to Bangladesh.

3. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, disciplinary action was initiated under the provisions of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 and the Rules framed there under. The petitioner was heard by his Commandant under Rule 45 of the BSF Rules, which contemplated hearing of the charge against an enrolled person on an offence report. Two charges under Section 40 of the BSF Act, 1968 relating to acts, prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force were framed against him. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to both charges.

4. Thereafter, a record of evidence was ordered to be prepared. The ROE was recorded in the presence and within the hearing of the petitioner. At this stage, he was afforded opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, to file a statement in his defence and to produce defence witnesses. The petitioner cross-examined the prosecution businesses but did not produce any defence witnesses. His verbal statement in defence was recorded in verbatim by the Recording Officer.

5. Upon consideration of the record of evidence, the Unit Commandant found a prima facie case against the petitioner and in exercise of powers under Rule 51 of the BSF Rules, directed the matter be tried by Summary Security Force Court (SSFC). The SSFC trial was conducted on 12th, 14th, 15th and 18th of July, 2008. During the trial, seven prosecution witnesses and five court witnesses were examined. The petitioner again pleaded not guilty to the charges. He was afforded opportunity to defend himself, but did not induce any defence witnesses.

6. Upon appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, the SSFC returned a finding of guilt against the petitioner and his co-accused on both charges. The sentence imposed was dismissal from service. The order of dismissal dated 18.07.2008, was issued vide order No. ESTT./127 BN/SSFC/SKS/08/11692-705 dated 19.07.2008.

7. The proceedings of the SSFC were thereafter counter-signed by the Deputy Inspector General, BSF, Cooch Behar Sector on 27.08.2008. Aggrieved by the finding and sentence, the petitioner preferred a statutory petition before the Director General, BSF, challenging both the findings of guilt and the punishment imposed. The said petition was examined at the directorate level and after consideration of the materials on record was rejected as devoid of merit. The rejection was communicated vide FHQ BSF (D&L)

Brach L- No. 06/93/2008/SP/CLO (D&L)/2907-10 dated 26.05.2009.

8. The petitioner approached this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for rescission and setting aside the dismissal order dated 18.07.2008 and the Appellate rejection order dated 26.05.2009 and for reinstatement in serv