Punjab & Haryana HC rejects plea of ex-BSF man against dismissalhttps://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/punjab-haryana-hc-rejects-plea-bsf-constable-dismissal-information-pakistan-5463192/

Punjab & Haryana HC rejects plea of ex-BSF man against dismissal

The constable in 2014 had been served with a chargesheet saying that when he was posted in Fazilka in 2012, he had shared the names of commandments of two BSF Battalions and their strength over mobile phone to “Pak intelligence agency agent” between November 3 and November 4.

Punjab & Haryana HC rejects plea of ex-BSF man against dismissal
The judgment was passed on September 20.

Ruling that the charges against him are of serious nature, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined to come to the rescue of a Border Security Force (BSF) constable who was dismissed from service for allegedly communicating sensitive information to a Pakistani intelligence agent in Abohar sector of Punjab in 2012.

Rejecting his plea against the dismissal order and against the judgment given by a single bench of the High Court in his case, the division bench of Chief Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Arun Palli has said the orders do not require any interference as there is no illegality in the order passed to dismiss him from service. The judgment was passed on September 20.

The constable in 2014 had been served with a chargesheet saying that when he was posted in Fazilka in 2012, he had shared the names of commandments of two BSF Battalions and their strength over mobile phone to “Pak intelligence agency agent” between November 3 and November 4.

He had challenged the dismissal on two grounds, saying that no reasons have been given in the dismissal order and also Commandment is not the competent authority to dismiss him from the service. He had been issued a showcause notice in September 2014 and was subsequently dismissed from the service while invoking the rule 22(2) of the BSF Rules, which allows dismissal of a personnel sans any trial due to the “inexpedient or impracticable” circumstances.

Advertising

The division bench in the judgment said once the competent authority had invoked the rule and found that an inquiry would be impractical and also prejudicial to the national interest, the only requirement was to inform the constable regarding the reasons as to why it was impractical to hold the regular disciplinary proceedings.

“In the case in hand, the appellant-petitioner was duly communicated the reasons that it was impractical to hold an inquiry and, thus, the departmental proceedings cannot be stated to be vitiated on the ground that order of dismissal is not a speaking order,” the judgment reads.

The other ground taken by the constable was also dismissed by the division bench saying that there is no question of the punishment being awarded by the Security Force Courts as the provision of the 1969 BSF rules was invoked in the case.

“The argument that the Commandant is not the competent authority is not at all liable to be accepted. The fact of the matter is that looking into the seriousness of the charges and it was impractical to hold an inquiry,” the division bench said.