Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi, Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla has upheld the dismissal of a Border Security Force Sub-Inspector for engaging in an illicit relationship with the wife of a fellow constable. Stating that such behaviour is inconsistent with the ethos of the uniform and the discipline expected in the Force, the Bench dismissed the officer’s plea challenging the orders of the General Security Force Court and the Director General, BSF. It observed that the findings of misconduct were supported by adequate evidence and that no breach of natural justice or procedural irregularity had been shown to justify interference, thereby sustaining the dismissal from service.

The petitioner, serving as a Sub-Inspector in the Border Security Force, faced disciplinary proceedings arising from allegations of maintaining an improper relationship with the wife of a fellow constable residing in the same residential block. It was alleged that between March 2019 and August 2020, the petitioner developed personal contact with her through WhatsApp and other communication, presented her with gifts including a mobile phone, jewellery, and clothing, and made visits to her residence in her husband’s absence. A written complaint was later made by the woman’s husband to the Inspector General, North Bengal Frontier, alleging an illicit relationship and inappropriate conduct.

Also Read: Insurer Liable to Pay Compensation Despite Route Deviation; Entitled to Recover From Owner: Supreme Court

A Court of Inquiry was convened, during which chats, video call screenshots, and photographs were recovered, purportedly showing the petitioner’s involvement. The woman’s statement recorded during the inquiry alleged that the petitioner had coerced her into physical relations. Based on the findings of the inquiry, charges were framed under the Border Security Force Act, 1968, including acts prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force. A Record of Evidence was prepared, confirming the petitioner’s communications, exchange of gifts, and possession of objectionable photographs.

Subsequently, a General Security Force Court was convened to try the petitioner on three charges under Section 40 of the BSF Act. Evidence before the court included testimonies from the complainant, the woman concerned, and other witnesses who confirmed interactions between the petitioner and the woman and the recovery of images from the petitioner’s mobile device. The petitioner denied the allegations, contending that the relationship was mischaracterized and that the evidence, including his mobile data, had been tampered with. He also claimed that the woman’s statements were made under coercion.

The respondents maintained that the evidence, including consistent witness statements and electronic material, established misconduct prejudicial to discipline. The case involved consideration of the BSF Act, 1968, and relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code initially invoked but later omitted from the final charge.

The Court observed that its power under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters relating to proceedings of the General Security Force Court (GSFC) is limited. It recorded that “the scope of this Court while exercising its power of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed and limited.” The Bench further stated that interference is justified only where there is “violation of the principles of natural justice, while conducting the trial, so as to vitiate the proceedings,” or where the conclusion reached by the GSFC is such “as no reasonable person would have ever reached.”

The Court noted that the findings of fact arrived at by the GSFC are final in nature, observing that “the GSFC is the master of the relevance, admissibility or weight of the evidence lead during the Trial.” It further stated that “so long as the findings are supported by some legal evidence, the adequacy or reliability of such evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in proceeding for a writ under Article 226.”

Considering the petitioner’s argument that the woman’s statements were made under coercion and therefore inadmissible, the Court recorded that “the plea of petitioner is overshadowed by the consistent and unwavering statement made by Ms. X during the COI proceedings, ROE and the trial before the GSFC.” It also noted that “the GSFC, while convicting the petitioner, did not solely rely on the testimony of Ms. X” and that the testimonies of other witnesses “strongly corroborate the case of prosecution.” The Bench found that “the regular communication via text messages, phone and video calls, gifts and the alleged recovery of images by PW-3 cannot be side lined.”

Addressing the second charge, the Court quoted the GSFC’s conclusion: “The Court believes that the act of accused making calls and chats are unwarranted in nature. The Court further believes that accused had given aforesaid items to Ms.X just to seek sexual favours from her as there is no other reason for making such communication and giving aforesaid items to her.”

The Bench observed that “no reasonable justification has been given as to why gifts were given by the petitioner to Ms. X,” and noted that “there appears no formal, familial or professional relationship between the petitioner and Ms. X that would ordinarily justify such gestures.”

Finally, the Court recorded that “in the absence of procedural irregularity or violation of principles of natural justice or any illegality leading to failure of interest of justice, the petitioner is unable to attract this Court’s limited power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” It further observed that “an officer belonging to a disciplined force bears the duty to maintain the highest standards of honesty and morality and abstain from any conduct that is inconsistent and unbecoming of the rank held by such officer.”

Also Read: Delay in Claim Not Fatal When Pension Wrongly Denied: Delhi High Court Upholds Arrears to Soldier’s Widow

The Court recorded: “In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is dismissed.” It further stated: “The pending applications if any, are accordingly dismissed.” The GSFC findings and sentence, as confirmed, were left undisturbed, and the statutory order dated 25.09.2023 rejecting the petitioner’s representation remained in effect, consistent with the Court’s limited power under Article 226 and its conclusions on the absence of procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, Advocate; Mr. Aayushman Aeron, Advocate; Mr. Shaurya Pratap Singh Banshtu, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Anshuman, Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India.

Case Title: XXX v. Union of India & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:9487-DB

Case Number: W.P.(C) 1027/2024 & CM APPL. 4250/2024

Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar; Justice Om Prakash Shukla