Delhi High Court Upholds BSF Constable’s Dismissal | Crossing International Border With Weapon Without Permission Is ‘Grave Misconduct’ And ‘Threat To National Security’
Isabella Mariam
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Shalinder Kaur and Justice Navin Chawla, dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a BSF Constable. The petitioner had sought quashing of his dismissal order and reinstatement with consequential benefits. The court, however, concluded that the punishment was proportionate and no procedural violations were found.
The petitioner, Desh Raj, was enrolled as a Constable in the Border Security Force (BSF) on 25.04.1988 and posted to the 34th Battalion after his training. In March 2006, his unit was deployed at the Indo-Bangladesh border in North Tripura. It was alleged that between 08.03.2006 and 10.03.2006, while on duty at Observation Posts 2 and 3, he abandoned his assigned posts without permission and illegally crossed into Bangladesh carrying his personal weapon.
A Court of Inquiry was conducted on 18.03.2006, followed by a hearing under Rule 45 of the BSF Rules, 1969. Subsequently, a Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) tried the petitioner under six charges, of which he was found guilty of the first, third, and sixth charges. The SSFC awarded the penalty of dismissal from service via order dated 04.08.2006. The petitioner’s statutory appeal under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act was also rejected on 07.11.2006.
The petitioner argued that the proceedings were vitiated by procedural irregularities, denial of adequate legal assistance, and lack of sufficient evidence to sustain the charges. The petitioner’s counsel relied on Rule 148 of the BSF Rules and judgments such as Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405 and Nirmal Lakra v. Union of India 102 (2003) DLT 415.
The respondents, represented by the learned CGSC Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, submitted that due process was followed, the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself, and sufficient evidence supported the charges. Reliance was placed on Union of India v. Dinesh Kumar (2010) 3 SCC 161.
The Bench recorded that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court's jurisdiction is limited in matters relating to Security Force Courts. Citing the decision in Director General, Border Security Force v. Iboton Singh (KH), the court noted that its intervention is confined to instances of complete absence of evidence, procedural violations, or perverse findings.
Examining the case, the Bench observed:
- “The SSFC is not required to provide detailed reasons for its findings, but has to give its opinion as to whether an individual is ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ of the charges framed against him.”
- The court stated that the proceedings complied with the BSF Act and Rules. The petitioner was provided with a friend of the accused, had no objection to the Court’s composition, and cross-examined prosecution witnesses. Although he was given an opportunity to present his defense, he chose not to call any witnesses.
- On the issue of assistance of a legal practitioner, the court recorded: “The petitioner has neither placed on record any communication requesting the assistance of any other person of his choice, nor has any material been brought forth to show that such a request, if made, was denied by the respondents.”
Regarding the evidence, the court meticulously examined witness testimonies:
- PW-4 deposed that the petitioner had crossed through Gate No. 4 without any proper entry in the In-Out register and did not have permission to leave his post.
- PW-5 confirmed seeing the petitioner near Gate No. 3, moving alone towards houses beyond the fencing.
- PW-6 stated that he had reliable information that the petitioner was frequently crossing the border into Bangladesh.
- PW-7 corroborated that the petitioner left through Gate No. 4 without returning for a significant time and failed to make necessary entries in the register.
- PW-3 directly identified the petitioner as the individual seen returning from Bangladesh near the Border Pillars.
The Bench concluded: “The absence of an entry in the In-Out register reasonably leads to the inference that the petitioner was attempting to move covertly, with the intention of avoiding detection or accountability for his actions.”
On the proportionality of punishment, the court held that crossing the International Border with an official weapon was a serious breach of security and discipline, warranting dismissal.
The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition, upholding the SSFC’s decision and the statutory authority’s order. The court held that:
“There is no tangible reason forthcoming to doubt the evidence on record, and no violation of the principles of natural justice has been established.”
The dismissal from service was found proportionate to the gravity of misconduct.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ishan Sanshi, Ms. Sagrika Wadhwa, and Ms. Poorvashi Kalra
For the Respondents: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC, with Mr. Chandan Prajapati and Mr. Kashish G. Baweja
Case Title: Desh Raj v. Director General, B.S.F. & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:3615-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 768/2007
Bench: Justice Shalinder Kaur and Justice Navin Chawla
[Read/Download order]
