BSF Rules | Court Of Inquiry Is Fact-Finding, Not Departmental Proceedings; Ordering Inquiry Or Recording Statement Causes No Prejudice: J&K And Ladakh HC
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed the appeals by a BSF officer against the Union authorities, declining to interfere with orders that permitted a Court of Inquiry to proceed and sustained his suspension. The challenge arose from allegations made by a woman BSF officer, which led to a criminal case and trial for an alleged sexual offence. The Bench held that a Court of Inquiry under the force framework is only a fact-finding exercise to aid the competent authority in deciding the next steps and does not, by itself, amount to commencement of departmental proceedings. It said the inquiry’s outcome is only a preliminary report, and that directing the officer to appear and record a statement would not cause prejudice.
The matter arose from a complaint lodged by a lady ASI (Ministerial) of the Border Security Force against an Assistant Commandant posted at STC Airport, Humhama, Srinagar. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered at Police Station Dwarka (North), New Delhi, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed and charges were framed by the competent criminal court, where the appellant is facing trial. Pending the criminal proceedings, the BSF authorities placed the officer under suspension in exercise of powers under Rule 40A(1) of the BSF Rules, 1969, and later confirmed the suspension. Separately, the BSF ordered initiation of a Court of Inquiry under Rule 173 of the BSF Rules to examine the allegations.
The appellant challenged both the initiation of the Court of Inquiry and the continuation of suspension, contending that parallel proceedings would prejudice his defence in the criminal trial. These challenges were dismissed by the Writ Court, leading to the filing of intra-court appeals.
The Division Bench recorded that “what is sought to be initiated by respondents in terms of Rule 173 is not the departmental proceedings but only a Court of Inquiry ordered by respondents to investigate the allegations levelled”. It observed that a Court of Inquiry under the BSF Rules is “only a fact-finding inquiry ordered to collect evidence so as to facilitate the BSF authorities in deciding its future course of action”. The Bench stated that “at the stage of Court of Inquiry, there is no departmental proceeding initiated or commenced against the delinquent”, and that such proceedings merely culminate in a preliminary report.
Addressing the apprehension of prejudice, the Court observed that “by ordering the Court of Inquiry or even asking the appellant to appear and record his statement would not prejudice him in any manner”. It further recorded that “the appellant cannot be forced to make any self-incriminating statement” and that he “shall have option to even remain silent during these proceedings”. The Bench noted that Rule 174 of the BSF Rules permits holding of a Court of Inquiry “to investigate into any disciplinary matter or any other matter of importance”, and that the allegations, if accepted at face value, prima facie constituted misconduct.
On the issue of simultaneous proceedings, the Court stated that the argument was “premature and without substance”, since no departmental proceedings had yet been initiated. With respect to suspension, the Court observed that the appellant was under suspension “for the reason that he is facing a criminal trial before the criminal court on a charge under Section 376 IPC” and not on account of any pending departmental inquiry. It recorded that the suspension had been periodically reviewed and that delay in non-existent departmental proceedings could not be urged as a ground for revocation.
In LPA No. 275/2025, the Division Bench recorded that “there are no departmental proceedings initiated or commenced by the respondents as on date and what is ordered by respondents is only a Court of Inquiry which is nothing more than a fact-finding inquiry to verify the allegations made by the lady officer so as to facilitate the competent authority to take further course of action. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal, same is accordingly dismissed”.
In respect of LPA No. 288/2025, challenging the suspension order, the Court directed that “for the reasons we have given above and the reasons which the Writ Court has given elaborately in the judgment impugned, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed”.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Danish Majid Dar, Advocate, with Ms. Mehjabeena, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Nazir Ahmad, Advocate; Mr. Sehar Mufti, Advocate (vice Mr. Viqas Malik, Advocate)
Case Title: Akhand Prakash Shahi v. Union of India & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: JKLHC-SGR:343-DB
Case Numbers: LPA No. 275/2025 c/w LPA No. 288/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Sanjay Parihar
