WP(C) 5989/2008

Page 1 of 6

i.5

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

W.P.(C) 5989/2008

BHAGIRATH CHOUDHARY

..... Petitioner

Through : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate

versus

BORDER SECURITY FORCE

THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL ..... Respondent

Through : Mr. Yadunath Singh,

Dy. Commandant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

1.Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to

see the judgment?

2.To be referred to Reporter or not?

No.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Rule DB.

2. Rejoinder affidavit stated to have been filed by the

petitioner yesterday is not on record, but copy thereof has been

handed over by learned counsel in the court. The same has

been considered.

3. Heard for disposal.

2009:DHC:4520-DB

WP(C) 5989/2008

Page 2 of 6

4. The petitioner was employed as a Constable under BSF on

22.02.1971 and earned promotion to the post of Lance Naik. He

earned further promotions and ultimately became a Sub-

Inspector.

5. During his service under BSF, he was awarded three

punishments on 30.05.1980, 06.01.1989 and 25.07.1994.

Pursuant to the first punishment he was imprisoned for 10 days.

The second punishment was a severe reprimand and the last

punishment was a reprimand.

6. A fourth incident took place on 29.12.2005, at about 19.30

Hrs., when the petitioner was performing duty of a Platoon

Commander at BSF Fence, Gate No.16, at the Indo-Bangladesh

Border. The Commandant noted hoof marks of cattle. It was

detected that a large number of cattles were permitted to

illegally cross-over from India to Bangladesh.

7. As per record of the respondents produced in court today

for our perusal, when confronted with the tainted evidence at

the site, the petitioner made a confessional statement admitting

that he permitted 130 cattle to cross-over from India to

Bangladesh.

8. Instances of smuggling at the Indo-Bangladesh Border,

having

assumed

alarming

proportions,

the

Commandant

reported the matter to the higher authorities and under Rule

45(b) of the BSF Rules, 1969 a preliminary hearing was

2009:DHC:4520-DB

WP(C) 5989/2008

Page 3 of 6

conducted in which evidence was recorded and reduced in the

form of a summary of record of evidence.

9. The said proceedings indicted the petitioner, resulting in

action being initiated under Rule 59 of the BSF Rules, 1969 i.e.

the petitioner was directed to be tried by a General Security

Force Court.

10. In the proceedings conducted before the General Security

Force Court, the procedure of law was followed, a charge was

served upon the petitioner and he was granted full opportunity

to participate in the proceedings.

11. We note that in the writ petition no prayer is made

pertaining to any alleged taint in the proceedings conducted by

the General Security Force Court.

12. The findings resulted in the guilt of the petitioner being

established.

13. BSF examined 10 witnesses. The petitioner did not lead

any evidence in defence.

14. An order dated 22.01.2008 was passed awarding six

months’ RI to the petitioner as also his being dismissed from

service.

15. Statutory remedies were availed by the petitioner with

reference to the order dated 22.01.2008 which resulted in the

authorities rejecting the petitions filed by the petitioner and

hence the instant writ petition.

2009:DHC:4520-DB

WP(C) 5989/2008

Page 4 of 6

16. A single point has been urged at the hearing of the writ

petition; being that, the order dated 22.01.2008 being a