HC upholds dismissal of BSF officer for ‘patronising’ smuggling along International Border

The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of an officer from the Border Security Force (BSF) from service for allegedly patronising smuggling activities while posted on the International Border.

Based upon various inputs, a Board of Officers (BOO) was detailed in 2016 to conduct a surprise check of the troops deployed at the Srimantapur Border Outpost (BOP) to verify and look into the alleged smuggling activities taking place in the area.

During a search of the BOP, Rs 2.54 lakh in cash was recovered from the officer, an Assistant Commandant, and varying amounts were also seized from other personnel. Consequently, a staff court of inquiry was convened to inquire into the matter.

The officer had contended that he had borrowed the money from his relatives and friends for his father’s treatment, who was admitted to a hospital in Haryana. The Assistant Commandant claimed that his father recovered faster than expected and since he was in a hurry to rejoin duty, he carried the cash along with him to the BOP.

The officer was subsequently tried by a General Security Force Court (GSFC), the BSF’s equivalent of the Army’s General Court Martial, on two charges. The first pertained to possession of unaccounted cash and the second was for violation of instructions that prohibited personnel from possessing more than Rs 500 in cash when posted on the border.

In 2019, the GSFC acquitted him of the first charge, but held him guilty of the second charge, sentencing him to forfeiture of two years’ service for the purpose of promotion and a severe reprimand.

However, the GSFC’s convening authority did not agree with the verdict of the court on the first charge on the grounds that it was against the weight of the evidence on record, and asked it to reconsider its findings and sentence. The GSFC again returned the same verdict, which was also not confirmed by the convening authority.

The competent authority concluded that once the finding of the GSFC in the revision trial had also not been confirmed and there being no provision for further remand, the trial of the officer by GSFC had become inexpedient and impractical but retention of the said officer in service was undesirable.

Thereafter, invoking Section 10 of the BSF Act, along with the relevant provisions of the BSF Rules, the officer was ordered to be dismissed from service after being served a show cause notice that gave detailed reasons for the convening authority not confirming the GSFC’s verdict.

The High Court’s Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, in their order of January 15, ruled that the competent authority had observed that the officer had not disclosed possession of such a large amount of cash with him to any authority prior to the surprise check by the BOO. In the surprise check, cash amounts were recovered not only from the officer but also from other personnel as well. The BOO had been ordered specifically because there was information of the personnel at Srimantapur giving patronage to smuggling activity by accepting bribes.

The Bench also held that the petitioner did not produce any evidence as to how the medical expenses on the treatment of his father were met by him. The Bench also took note of the competent authority’s review of the officer’s bank account transactions and its observation that it was unbelievable that he borrowed Rs 2.54 lakh when he already had deposits more than this amount.