Supreme Court upholds BSF sub-inspector’s dismissal for facilitating cattle smuggling

The Supreme Court recently upheld the dismissal of a Border Security Force (BSF) sub-inspector who was found guilty of facilitating illegal cattle smuggling at the Indo-Bangladesh border [Bhagirath Choudhary v. Border Security Force].

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale said that misconduct by officers guarding the nation’s borders cannot be taken lightly.

“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 and it is for this reason, the punishment permissible under Section 48(1)(c) of the BSF Act, 1968 has been imposed on the appellant,” the Court said.

The appellant, Bhagirath Choudhary, had served in the BSF for 36 years and was posted as a post commander at the Indo-Bangladesh border at the time of the incident. He was accused of allowing illegal cattle smuggling.

The case against him was based on a confessional statement and physical signs found at the spot. However, no cattle or illegal gratification was recovered and there were no independent eyewitnesses.

He was tried by a General Security Force Court (GSFC) and convicted under Section 40 of the BSF Act, 1968 for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force.

The GSFC imposed a composite punishment of six months’ rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service, which was later confirmed by the authorities.

Choudhary challenged the punishment before the Delhi High Court, contending that it was disproportionate to the alleged offence, particularly given his 36 years of service.

The High Court, however, upheld the conviction as well as the composite punishment imposed by the GSFC.

Aggrieved by this decision, Choudhary approached the Supreme Court.

The top court agreed with the reasoning adopted by the High Court and found no infirmity in the order.

It held that the punishment was in accordance with the provisions of the BSF Act and that there was no violation of principles of natural justice.

“This has been dealt with by the High Court in detail by referring to the relevant provisions of the BSF Act, 1968 and rightly so has arrived at a conclusion 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 as found that therein, and as such there was no infirmity in the said order,” the Court observed.

The Court further noted that Choudhary had faced disciplinary action on four earlier occasions, including imprisonment and severe reprimands.

On the issue of pension, the Court allowed him to submit a representation seeking pension.

It went on to clarify that the authorities may consider the request on its own merits but the order should not be treated as a direction to grant pension.

“However, we make it clear that this order shall not be construed as an order directing the respondent to grant a pension to appellant and it would be in the complete discretion of the competent authorities,” the Court said.

Advocates Anirudh Singh, Abhijeet Singh, Chitrangda Rastravara, Aishwary Mishra, Dhananjai Shekhwat, Yuvraj Singh, Pearl Pundir, Dashrath Singh and Karan Singh Bhati appeared for the appellant.

Additional Solicitor General Davinder Pal Singh and advocates Vidhi Gupta, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Padmesh Mishra, Arkaj Kumar and Arvind Kumar Sharma appeared for the respondent.

[Read Order]