Delhi High Court Allows Disciplinary Inquiry Against BSF Officer to Proceed.


02 April 2025 Disciplinary Proceedings >> Workplace/ Professional Related  

The Delhi High Court, in a judgment delivered on April 2, 2025, by Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul, dismissed a writ petition filed by a Border Security Force (BSF) officer, Deepak Kumar Singh, seeking to quash an inquiry against him. The court affirmed that it would not intercede in ongoing disciplinary proceedings at an interlocutory stage, especially when the petitioner conceded to acting outside his operational jurisdiction.
Deepak Kumar Singh, a Second-In-Command in the BSF, was facing an inquiry following a charge-sheet issued on April 1, 2020, by the Commandant, 123rd Bn. BSF. The inquiry stemmed from a communication dated December 19, 2018, from the Director General (DG), BSF, to the Commandant. Singh sought to quash this communication and an order dated September 21, 2021, which directed a Record of Evidence (ROE) to be gathered against him.

The petitioner, who was on deputation to the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) from May 2015 to August 2018, was in independent charge of the 63rd Bn, a reserve battalion with no operational jurisdiction. Despite this, he claimed to have carried out numerous search and seizure operations, including the seizure of contraband and smuggled animals, based on verbal instructions from the Inspector General (IG), SSB. For these operations, he received several commendations and cash awards.

 
 

The contentious incident occurred on February 22, 2018, when Singh, acting on purported verbal instructions, engaged in an operation to seize demonetized currency. This led to an altercation where a notorious criminal was killed, resulting in cross-FIRs being lodged and Singh's arrest and subsequent suspension.

A Staff Court of Inquiry (SCOI) and an Additional COI were constituted, which found that Singh had conducted operations beyond his operational jurisdiction without written approval. Despite initial findings by the Commandant, 123rd Bn BSF, in April 2020, that Singh was "not guilty" and dismissing the charge, the case was referred to the DG, BSF, as required by BSF Rules. The Additional Director General (ADG), BSF, subsequently advised the Commandant to proceed with an ROE, stating that the case could not be dismissed solely on the basis of the petitioner's statement.

Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the proceedings were unjustified, given that Singh had acted under the instructions of his superior, the IG, SSB. He further contended that subjecting an officer to disciplinary action for obeying superior orders would be demoralizing. Dr. Hooda also questioned the competence of the ADG to direct an ROE, as the case was referred to the DG.

However, the Court sided with the respondents, represented by Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC, who argued that Singh's actions were in excess of his jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that no official, especially a member of a disciplined force, can claim a right to act outside their jurisdiction. It also noted the absence of any written communication from the IG, SSB, instructing Singh to act outside his jurisdiction.

The High Court clarified that its certiorari jurisdiction focuses on the manner in which power is exercised, not the subjective merits of a decision. The Court found no inherent defect in the ADG's decision to direct an ROE, as it is an intermediate stage and no final opinion on guilt or innocence has been expressed. The Court stated that the DG is assisted by various officers, including the ADG, in examining such files.

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that no case was made out to grant the reliefs sought by the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition. The Court observed that staying inquiry proceedings is generally not done unless there's an inherent jurisdictional defect, which was not found in this case. The Court suggested that the petitioner's delay in promotion and rewards was a "sequitur" to the pendency of proceedings, implying that allowing the ROE to proceed might have led to an earlier resolution.