$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 10.04.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 16.04.2026 + W.P.(C) 4754/2026 DEEPAK KUMAR SHUKLA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Saroj Kumar Singh, Advocate.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi CGSC with Ms. Pinki Pawar GP Ms.

Himanshi Singh, Advocates.

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Shukla from BSF. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 02.12.2023, passed by the Commandant, 118 Battalion, Border Security Force, whereby the Petitioner was dismissed from service and consequently praying for reinstatement into service.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was serving as a Constable (GD) in the Border Security Force, and was deployed with ‘E’ Company at Border Out Post (BOP) Sahebkhali along the India–Bangladesh border between June 2022 and January 2023. During this period, an operational incident occurred on the intervening night of 29th - 30th January 2023 while he was assigned to Boat Naka duty. A report indicated suspicious movement, including footprints and possible smuggling activity in the area. It was alleged that when a floating object was noticed, the petitioner failed to respond despite being alerted by his colleague, and remained inactive. This raised suspicion regarding his conduct during operational duty.

3. Subsequently, his mobile phone was seized and subjected to forensic analysis, which revealed that he had been using an undeclared mobile device during duty hours in violation of standing instructions, and had been in contact with certain individuals allegedly involved in smuggling activities in the border area. This discovery prompted further scrutiny of his activities, including an examination of his financial transactions.

4. Upon inquiry, it was found that significant sums of money had been credited into his personal bank account as well as accounts held in the name of his wife during the same period of deployment. These transactions, involving multiple deposits and transfers from various individuals, appeared disproportionate to his known sources of income and lacked immediate explanation.

5. On 25.11.2023, the Petitioner was issued a charge sheet by the Commandant, 118 Battalion, Border Security Force (‘BSF’) under Sections 40 and 22(e) of the BSF Act. The five charges against the Petitioner were as follows:

“

”

6. The Petitioner pleaded guilty to the first and fifth charges and not guilty to the remaining charges. In respect of the contested charges, upon consideration of the material on record, the Commandant/Presiding Officer, Summary Security Force Court found him guilty of all charges and, taking into account his service record, and dismissed him from service on 02.12.2023.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Petitioner filed a Statutory Petition before the Director General, BSF. The appellate authority vide order dated 06.06.2025, held that the conviction was supported by evidence and that due process had been followed, and accordingly dismissed the appeal, affirming the Petitioner’s dismissal from service.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the present Petition has been filed.

9. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been wrongly dismissed from service. He submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in allegations of involvement in smuggling activities solely on the basis of routine financial transactions in his and his wife’s bank accounts, without any cogent evidence establishing nexus with any illegal activity.

10. He submits that the transactions in his bank account were loans he had taken and routine transactions with persons connected to the Border Security Force, and none of the transactions in the accounts were with individuals linked to any smuggling activities.

11. He submitted that the Petitioner was neither afforded a meaningful