* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 08.01.2026 Judgment delivered on: 10.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on: As per Digital Signature~

+ W.P.(C) 3872/2022 MURARI KUMAR SINGH .....Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case For the petitioner : Mr. Mahboob Inayati and Mr.Shoaib Khan, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Nirvikar Verma, SPC with Mr. Varun Kumar, Advs. alongwith Mr. Paramveer Singh, D.C.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

JUDGMENT

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the Summary Security Force Court (‘SSFC’, for short) dismissing the petitioner from service. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is as under:-

“a) Pass an order/writ/direction setting aside impugned orders dt 21.06.2021 & 26.12.2021.

b) Pass an order/writ/direction reinstating the petitioner with continuity in service from the date he was dismissed from the service with full salary.”

2. The facts as noted from the writ petition are that the petitioner enrolled in Border Security Force (‘BSF’, for short) as Constable on 31.03.2008. During his service, he was awarded commendation certificate for operational achievement in Anti Naxal Operations. In September 2016, the petitioner completed CI-CDO Course (Counter Insurgency-Commando)

training in Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.

3. On 29.04.2021, the petitioner had accidently fired 01 (one) round of 5.56 mm from INSAS rifle/his personal weapon without any provocation. On the same day, the Commandant BSF passed the order appointing Rakesh Kumar Paliwal, DC, Adjutant (‘Adjt’, for short) to record evidence and submit the report by 06.05.2021.

4. On 30.04.2021, Rakesh Kumar Paliwal, DC, Adjt prepared a detailed report, before recording evidence of witnesses, alleging that the petitioner had fired 01 round on 29.04.2021 without any provocation and that the petitioner was in state of intoxication at the time of the event. On 03.05.2021 to 11.05.2021, the Record of Evidence (RoE) of prosecution witnesses was recorded by Mr. Paliwal.

5. On 18.06.2021, the Commandant after going through the RoE ordered the SSFC to assemble on 21.06.2021 at 11:00 Hrs. The petitioner vide same order was placed under ‘open arrest’ with effect from 10:00 Hrs on 20.06.2021 till conclusion of trial. On 21.06.2021, the petitioner was made to appear before the Commandant and his signature was taken on papers. On the same day, he was informed that, he has been held guilty of charges under Section 40 of the BSF Act, 1968 for firing 01 round without any provocation and under Section 22(e) of the Act for being in the state of intoxication while on duty. Pursuant to the finding of the SSFC, the petitioner, on 21.06.2021, was dismissed from service and was handed over some documents including RoE.

6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner filed the statutory appeal before the Inspector General (‘IG’, for short). On 26.12.2021, the IG dismissed the statutory appeal by upholding that the petitioner had plead ‘guilty’ of the charges, which according to the petitioner, he did not plead guilty. Hence, the present petition has been filed challenging the order of dismissal and the rejection of the appeal with a prayer to reinstate him in the service.

7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mahboob Inayati that, the petitioner was informed in the morning of 20.06.2021 that the Commandant had placed him under ‘open arrest’ and he would be tried by the SSFC on 21.06.2021.

8. According to the counsel, the evidence was recorded without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner was not allowed to take the assistance of any counsel or competent officer or ‘friend of the accused’ to assist him in cross examination of witnesses. It is also his case that the evidence was recorded in English which the petitioner doe