BSF personnel cannot absent themselves without leave, says Delhi HC while upholding dismissal of service

Read order: Deepak Chaudhry vs. Union of India & Ors.

LE Staff

New Delhi, August 9, 2021: The Delhi High Court has upheld the punishment of dismissal given to a Border Security Force (BSF) constable saying that personnel of such a disciplined force cannot be absent without leave and that such conduct has been taken seriously by the paramilitary force. 

A Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Justice Amit Bansal observed that the conduct of the petitioner of absenting himself without leave gravely affects the ethos and discipline of an armed force like the BSF. 

These observations were made in reference to a petition assailing an order passed by the Commandant, BSF dismissing the petitioner from service pursuant to the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) holding him guilty of offences u/s 19(a) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (BSF Act).

The dispute relates to the absence of the petitioner, who was a Constable, without leave from the services of the BSF. The petitioner, when remanded after competition of the Record of Evidence, was tried by the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) for two offences of ‘absenting himself without leave’ u/s 19(a) of the BSF Act. 

Although the petitioner pleaded guilty to both offences upon being given an opportunity by the respondent BSF for making a statement in his defence, he was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service by the SSFC. 

The statutory petition filed by the Ex-Constable also came to be dismissed noting that he had a dismal service record and was habitually absenting himself without leave. 

Therefore, seeking reinstatement, the counsel for the petitioner argued that proper opportunity of presenting his case was not given to the petitioner in terms of Rule 45, Rule 45B and Rule 71 r/w Rule 78 of the BSF Rules and that the petitioner was made to plead guilty under coercion by the respondents. 

The High Court found that the petitioner has failed to show any clear violation of the aforesaid Rules. Even if it is assumed that there was some violation of any procedure as mandated by the Rules, the petitioner has failed to point out the prejudice caused to him on account of such alleged violation. 

“It is admitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for leave but the same was not given by the respondent BSF and therefore, the petitioner proceeded to absent himself without leave as his uncle was acutely ill. Moreover, there is nothing on record to substantiate the contention that the petitioner was made to plead guilty under coercion,” observed the Bench. 

The violation as alleged by the petitioner would not be grounds for seeking interference of Courts unless it is clearly demonstrated that such violation caused prejudice to the petitioner, added the Bench. 

Therefore, noting that the petitioner had absented himself without leave on earlier occasions also but was dealt with leniently and given an opportunity to improve his conduct, the High Court confirmed his dismissal from service.