Delhi High Court Affirms Service Termination Under BSF Act, Upholds Principle of ‘Inexpedient or Impractical Trials for Officers Found in Possession of Disproportionate Assets

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court upheld the petitioner’s dismissal under Section 10 of the BSF Act, 1968, and Rule 20(4)(a) of the BSF Rules, 1969. It found that the disciplinary and judicial processes in the BSF framework had been appropriately followed, and the petitioner’s continuation in service was undesirable due to the allegations against him.

The court noted:

• Once the General Security Force Court (GSFC) findings on the first charge (possession of disproportionate assets) were rejected twice by the Confirming Authority, further trial by the GSFC was deemed impractical.
• The administrative power to terminate service in such situations is valid, provided it is exercised fairly and based on substantial evidence.

Facts:

1. Service Background: The petitioner was an Assistant Commandant in the Border Security Force (BSF), joining in 2012. During his tenure, he was deployed to a sensitive, smuggling-prone area at the Srimantapur Border Outpost (BOP).
2. Allegations: A surprise check conducted by a Board of Officers (BOO) in February 2016 resulted in the recovery of ₹2,54,000 from the petitioner’s possession. This amount far exceeded the permissible limit of ₹500 for personnel deployed at BOPs, as per the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).
3. Charges:
   • First Charge: Possession of pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income, punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
   • Second Charge: Violation of local orders by carrying cash beyond the permissible limit.
4. GSFC Proceedings: The GSFC acquitted the petitioner of the first charge but found him guilty of the second charge. The penalty imposed was the forfeiture of two years of service for promotion and a severe reprimand.
5. Administrative Action: The Confirming Authority refused to confirm the GSFC’s findings on the first charge, citing inconsistencies and evidence gaps. A show-cause notice was issued under Section 10 of the BSF Act, resulting in the petitioner’s dismissal from service.

Issues:

1. Validity of Administrative Dismissal: Whether the invocation of Section 10 of the BSF Act was justified after the GSFC failed to convict the petitioner on the first charge.
2. Practicality of Further Trial: Whether the refusal of the Confirming Authority to confirm the GSFC findings rendered further judicial proceedings impractical.
3. Evidence Weight: Whether the dismissal was supported by sufficient evidence and followed principles of fairness.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Source of Money: The petitioner claimed that the ₹2,54,000 was borrowed from his family friend and brother-in-law for his father’s medical treatment.
2. Improper Use of Section 10: He argued that administrative dismissal was improper as the GSFC had already acquitted him of the first charge after examining the evidence.
3. Procedural Irregularities: The petitioner contended that the disciplinary proceedings were flawed and influenced by biases against him.
4. Precedents: He relied on judgments emphasizing the limited scope of administrative power where judicial findings already exist.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Violation of SOP: The petitioner violated the SOP by possessing cash well beyond the permitted limit at the BOP, undermining operational discipline in a sensitive border area.
2. Contradictory Defense: The respondents argued that the petitioner’s claims about the source of money were inconsistent, lacking credible evidence to support them.
3. Administrative Necessity: The Confirming Authority’s refusal to accept the GSFC findings on the first charge justified recourse to administrative dismissal under Rule 20.
4. Reliance on Precedent: The respondents cited Harjeet Singh Sandhu and other judgments to justify administrative action when judicial processes become impractical.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Section 10 of the BSF Act: Allows the dismissal of personnel when their retention is undesirable, especially when judicial processes fail or are impractical.
2. Rule 20 of the BSF Rules: Provides procedural safeguards, requiring notice and an opportunity for the officer to explain. These were complied with in the petitioner’s case.
3. Supreme Court Precedents: The court analyzed Major Dharam Pal Kukrety and Harjeet Singh Sandhu, emphasizing that administrative powers are valid when trials are impractical, but their exercise must adhere to principles of fairness.
4. Standard of Review: The court reiterated that administrative decisions are subject to judicial review but only for mala fides, arbitrariness, or abuse of power. Substitution of judicial opinion is not permitted.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Harjeet Singh Sandhu v. Union of India: The Supreme Court held that administrative action is valid where trials are impractical, provided it is not exercised whimsically or to achieve an ulterior motive.
2. Major Dharam Pal Kukrety v. Chief of Army Staff: It was emphasized that courts should not intervene lightly in disciplinary actions unless there is clear abuse of power.
3. S.S. Shekhavat v. Union of India: The Delhi High Court reiterated that administrative decisions must be based on substantial evidence and conform to procedural fairness.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. The court noted that the petitioner’s explanation for the source of money was riddled with inconsistencies, undermining its credibility.
2. The GSFC’s acquittal on the first charge was found to lack sufficient reasoning, justifying the Confirming Authority’s rejection.
3. The administrative dismissal was upheld as the Confirming Authority’s repeated refusal to confirm GSFC findings rendered further proceedings impractical.
4. The court held that the petitioner’s actions breached the discipline required of personnel deployed in sensitive border areas, justifying his dismissal.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the validity of the dismissal order. It held that the dismissal was based on a thorough examination of evidence and consistent with legal precedents. The court emphasized that administrative powers under Section 10 of the BSF Act are not unfettered but were exercised appropriately in this case.

Implications:

This judgment underscores:

1. The importance of maintaining discipline and integrity in paramilitary forces, especially in sensitive areas.
2. The validity of administrative actions when judicial proceedings fail or become impractical.
3. The limited scope of judicial review in administrative matters, reinforcing principles of procedural fairness and proportionality.

Also Read – Chhattisgarh High Court Stays ₹16.22 Lakh Recovery Order and Arbitrator’s Decision Against Paddy Procurement In-charge: “Opportunity to Be Heard Is a Fundamental Principle of Natural Justice, Appeal Rights Under Clause 14 Must Be Honored”