HC upholds BSF officer’s dismissal for ‘patronising’ smuggling
The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Border Security Force (BSF) officer for allegedly facilitating smuggling activities while posted on the International Border.
In 2016, a Board of Officers (BOO) conducted a surprise inspection at the Srimantapur Border Outpost (BOP) based on reports of smuggling activities. During the search, Rs 2.54 lakh in cash was recovered from the officer, an Assistant Commandant, along with smaller amounts from other personnel. This prompted a staff court of inquiry into the matter.
The officer claimed the cash was borrowed from relatives and friends for his father’s medical treatment in Haryana. He said his father recovered sooner than expected, and, in his haste to return to duty, he carried the money to the BOP.
The officer was subsequently tried by a General Security Force Court (GSFC), BSF’s equivalent of a General Court Martial, on two charges: possession of unaccounted cash and violating rules that restricted personnel from holding more than Rs 500 in cash at the border.
In 2019, the GSFC acquitted him of the first charge but found him guilty of the second, sentencing him to a two-year forfeiture of service for promotion purposes and issuing a severe reprimand. However, the GSFC’s convening authority rejected the acquittal on the first charge, citing insufficient evidence. When asked to reconsider, the GSFC upheld its original verdict, which the convening authority again declined to confirm.
The competent authority concluded that further proceedings were impractical and that retaining the officer was undesirable. Citing Section 10 of the BSF Act and relevant rules, the officer was dismissed from service after being issued a detailed show-cause notice.
In its January 15 order, a High Court Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur supported the dismissal. The Bench noted that the officer failed to disclose the large cash amount before the BOO’s surprise inspection. It highlighted that cash was recovered from multiple personnel and that the BOO’s inspection was prompted by reports of smuggling activities involving bribes.
The court also observed that the officer provided no proof of using the cash for his father’s medical expenses. Additionally, the competent authority found it implausible that he borrowed Rs 2.54 lakh while possessing bank deposits exceeding that amount.
