Administative authorities may dispense with disciplinary inquiry procedures when deemed inexpedient due to security concerns. Dismissal based on internal findings is permissible following criminal acquittal, as disciplinary actions rely on the preponderance of probability rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

“a. Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing and setting aside Order dated 30.11.2020 passed by Respondent No. 2 whereby the Petitioner has been dismissed from service; and

b. Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing and setting aside Order dated 20.09.2023 passed by Respondent No. 2 whereby the Petitioner‟s representation has been rejected; and

c. Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in service with all consequential benefits like back pay etc.”

2. The facts as noted from the present petition are that, the petitioner was a Constable in Border Security Force (BSF) and has challenged his dismissal from service vide the impugned order dated 30.11.2020 under Section 11 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (the Act) read with Rule 177 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (the Rules) and Rule 22(1)(b) of the Rules.

3. The petitioner while he was posted at Samba, Jammu and Kashmir in 2018, received a friend request from a girl named Krishna on his social media. As per the petition, she claimed to be a native of Chandigarh and is residing in Dubai for studies. As per the petitioner, the girl initiated the contact primarily through Facebook and messenger and solicited his pictures in uniform and enquired about his place of posting which as per the petitioner was never disclosed.

4. Dr. S. S. Hooda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that, in September, 2018, while the petitioner was on leave, the said girl asked for the petitioner‟s bank account number in order to buy a gift for petitioner’s son and transferred a sum of Rs.5000/- in his account. He stated that, once petitioner found out that the account of the transferor belonged to one Mr. Srinivas which is when the petitioner became suspicious of the intentions of the said girl.

5. According to him, after the battalion had moved to Meghalaya, the petitioner broke all contacts with the girl on suspicion of intel-collection through false identity. After two or three months, he received a call from an unknown number asking him to delete all the contents/ data relating to the said girl. One year later, i.e., in 2019, the petitioner received another friend request from a different girl named “Preety Sharma” who claimed to be a resident of Shillong and showed active interest in meeting him but the petitioner ignored her and stopped receiving messages from her.

6. He stated that, in November, 2020, the respondent No.2/BSF allegedly received security inputs that the petitioner is in constant touch with Pakistani Intelligence Operatives („PIO‟) and on 20.11.2020, the petitioner was interrogated at his place of posting by the Deputy Commandant of respondent No.2. Subsequent, Staff Court of Inquiry (SCOI) was held and the petitioner was found liable for misconduct.

7. Simultaneously, a complaint was made by respondent No.2 and an FIR was registered against the petitioner with the Meghalaya Police. The In