22 April 2025 Disciplinary Proceedings >> Workplace/ Professional Related  

In a significant judgment of Narender Kumar v/s Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs & Others, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging the dismissal from service of a Border Security Force (BSF) Constable, upholding the findings of a Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) in a case involving disproportionate pecuniary resources. The petitioner had sought to quash his dismissal order from June 5, 2009, and the subsequent rejection of his statutory petition by the Director General, BSF, on July 19, 2010.

Background of the Case:

The petitioner joined the BSF as a Constable (General Duty) on July 15, 1987. The disciplinary proceedings against him stemmed from a widespread inquiry within the 51st Battalion of BSF, which was deployed in the SB Frontier from March 2004 to June 2006. During this period, a large number of personnel were found to be sending bank drafts disproportionate to their known sources of income.

A Staff Court of Inquiry (SCOI) was initiated, which revealed that the petitioner had prepared 14 bank drafts totaling Rs. 3,19,000/- in favor of his wife, Smt. Kailash Kumari, between November 23, 2004, and March 13, 2006. During the same period, his total pay and allowances amounted to Rs. 1,18,883/-, indicating a significant discrepancy.

Based on these findings, disciplinary action was initiated. A Record of Evidence (ROE) was conducted, and a Charge-Sheet was prepared under Section 46 of the BSF Act, 1968, for committing a civil offense: being in possession of pecuniary resources disproportionate to known sources of income for which he could not satisfactorily account.

The SSFC proceedings, held from June 1 to June 5, 2009, found the petitioner 'guilty' despite his 'not guilty' plea. He was subsequently dismissed from service. His statutory petition challenging the dismissal was also rejected. The petitioner initially filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, which was dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, leading to the present petition before the Delhi High Court.

Petitioner's Arguments and Court's Rebuttal:

The petitioner's counsel argued several procedural irregularities:

• Violation of Natural Justice: Alleging that the Preliminary Hearing under Rule 45 of BSF Rules, 1969, and the SSFC proceedings were presided over by the same officer. The court found no merit in this, stating the Commandant was competent and authorized, and no bias was substantiated.
• Lack of Timely Document Service: Contending that copies of the ROE and Charge-Sheet were not served in a timely manner (only on the day of trial), impairing his defense. The court, after reviewing the original record, found a signature of the petitioner acknowledging receipt of documents on May 31, 2009, making the claim baseless and attributing the discrepancy to a typographical error.
• Inadmissible Evidence: Claiming that photocopies of SCOI proceedings were used as evidence without comparison to originals. The court clarified that strict adherence to the rules of evidence, as in criminal trials, is not required in disciplinary proceedings, and the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probability.
• Lack of Incriminating Evidence: Asserting that no material witnesses were examined to support the charge and that the sole prosecution witness's evidence was inadmissible. The court found that the petitioner did not refute the bank draft remittances and failed to substantiate his explanations regarding the source of funds.
• Satisfactory Explanation of Funds: Arguing that he had provided a detailed explanation for the money, and it was the respondents' duty to prove otherwise. The petitioner's explanation, involving cash from home, sale of gold, and a loan repayment, was deemed unsubstantiated as he provided no supporting evidence. The court noted that such periodic remittances over 15 months cast doubt on the justification.
• Disproportionate Punishment: Suggesting that only a fine could be imposed under Section 48(1)(h) of the BSF Act for civil offenses, and highlighting his exemplary service record. The court rejected this, stating that dismissal under Section 48(1)(c) is appropriate for misconduct and dishonesty in discharge of duties.

Court's Analysis and Decision:

The High Court reiterated that its scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not extend to re-evaluating evidence in departmental proceedings. Instead, it focuses on the correctness of the decision-making process and adherence to natural justice.

The court emphasized that the onus was on the petitioner to prove that his assets were not disproportionate to his "known sources of income," as per the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which he failed to discharge.

Finding no procedural irregularity or transgression of rules, the High Court dismissed the petition. The judgment reinforces the principle that disciplinary authorities are entitled to reach factual conclusions based on evidence, and courts will intervene only in cases of glaring procedural irregularities, violation of natural justice, or conclusions that no reasonable person would reach.