Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale declined to interfere with the dismissal of a Border Security Force Sub-Inspector who was convicted by a General Security Force Court for facilitating illegal cattle smuggling at the Indo-Bangladesh border. The Court noted that infractions by officers manning the borders cannot be viewed lightly when national security is at stake and accordingly found no infirmity in the composite punishment of six months' rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service. While the Court declined to extend pension benefits as a matter of right, it permitted the dismissed officer to submit a representation to the authorities for consideration of pension on its own merits, given his 36 years of service.

Also Read: Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over Lawyers Using AI-Generated Fake Citations, Flags Non-Existent Cases And Fabricated Quotes In Pleadings

A Sub-Inspector of the Border Security Force with 36 years of service was accused of facilitating illegal cattle smuggling at Gate No. 16 on the Indo-Bangladesh Border while serving as a Post-Commander. The charges were based on an alleged confessional statement and physical signs at the site, though no cattle or illegal gratification was recovered and no independent witnesses were present. Following a General Security Force Court trial, he was convicted for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force and was handed a composite punishment of six months' rigorous imprisonment along with dismissal from service.

The officer challenged the order before the High Court, arguing that the confession was obtained under coercion, the evidence was unreliable, and the punishment was disproportionate to the offence, particularly given his lengthy service record. The High Court dismissed his challenge, after which he approached the Supreme Court, also seeking pension benefits in light of his 36 years of service.

The Court observed that “though several grounds were urged in the Writ Petition before the High Court, the same was restricted to one ground alone… namely that the order dated 22.01.2008 being a composite order of imposing six months’ rigorous imprisonment and punishment of dismissal from service and same being contrary to law.”

It recorded that the High Court had referred to the relevant provisions of the BSF Act, 1968 and had concluded that “by virtue of Section 50 of the BSF Act, 1968, a sentence of a Security Force Court in addition to, the punishment contemplated under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 48 being permissible namely any one or more of the punishments specified under the law can be imposed.” The Bench stated that “The reasoning adopted by the High Court is in consonance with the provisions of the BSF Act, 1968 and as such we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.”

On the plea for pension, the Court stated that “though at first blush looks attractive, on a deeper examination it is not.” It explained that in the earlier decision relied upon, the delinquent employee had been dismissed for unauthorized absence and the punishment was found disproportionate in that context. The Court noted that in the present case, “the appellant has four incidents resulting in punishment being imposed… which has also resulted in the imprisonment of ten days for the first offence, and punishment of severe reprimand for the second and third offences, and the fourth one is the present case of permitting smuggling of cattle at the Border of the country.”

The Bench recorded that “When the national security is paramount, any infraction thereof that too by the officers or the concerned who would be manning the Borders cannot be viewed lightly.” It further observed that the punishment imposed was permissible under Section 48(1)(c) of the BSF Act, 1968.

The Court directed that “we permit the appellant to submit a representation to the respondents for granting pension, if any, and in the event of such application being filed, the authorities would be at liberty to consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law notwithstanding the confirmation of the order of dismissal.”

Also Read: Disqualification From Public Employment Removed When Offender Is Released On Probation; Appointment Cannot Be Denied Solely On Prior Conviction: Delhi High Court

“Respondent would be at liberty to restrict the pension for any particular quantum or period or otherwise. This order shall not be construed as an order directing the respondent to grant pension to appellant and it would be in the complete discretion of the competent authorities.”

“Subject to the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Anirudh Singh, Advocate; Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Advocate; Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Advocate; Mr. Aishwary Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Dhananjai Shekhwat, Advocate; Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Advocate; Ms. Pearl Pundir, Advocate; Mr. Dashrath Singh, Advocate; Mr. Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, AOR

For the Respondents: Mr. Davinder Pal Singh, A.S.G.; Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Advocate; Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Advocate; Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Advocate; Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

Case Title: Bhagirath Choudhary v. Border Security Force

Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). 3877/2011

Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale