Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects ITBP constable’s plea dismissed for recruitment scam involvement

Justice Subhash Mehla heard the matter on May 1.

Justice Mehla added that the charges were specific and supported by the petitioner’s own written confessional statement made during the record of evidence.

Allegation of taking bribe and dismissal

The petitioner, appointed as a constable in 1997, was detailed for administrative duties in connection with a recruitment drive in West Bengal. In 2011, the allegations were levelled against him regarding his purported involvement with certain intermediaries in the recruitment process, where, allegedly, candidates were charged Rs 40,000 for selection.

It was further alleged that he disobeyed specific commands by acting as an invigilator without authority despite being assigned to mass duties. He was subsequently placed under suspension with retrospective effect and charge-sheeted under Sections 23(2)(b) and 44(e) of the ITBPF Act, 1992, on allegations of disobedience of lawful command and involvement in illegal gratification.

Following a record of evidence and a Summary Force Court (SFC) trial, the petitioner was dismissed from service on January 8, 2002. He then challenged the SFC proceedings, the dismissal order, and the rejection of his statutory petition.

Petitioner’s case

Appearing for the petitioner, advocates Viren Jain and Jyoti Negi submitted that the entire process stands vitiated on account of gross procedural irregularities and undue haste.

They argued that the charge-sheet was issued without conducting any preliminary inquiry; the record of evidence was recorded and concluded in a single day; and the SFC trial culminated in the petitioner’s dismissal on the very first date of hearing.

Such a course of action, it was argued, reflects a predetermined approach and renders the proceedings arbitrary. They contended that the charges framed against the petitioner are vague and unsustainable.

It is argued that the allegation of disobedience of lawful command does not specify the nature of the command, the authority issuing it, or the date and time of its alleged violation. A general briefing, it is submitted, cannot be equated with a lawful command within the meaning of the Act.

The petitioner has also challenged the proceedings on the ground of violation of mandatory statutory provisions of the ITBPF Act and Rules. It is contended that the provisions of Section 82 (Summary Force Court) of the ITBPF Act, relating to the convening and proper constitution of the force court, were not complied with.

State’s stand

Representing the state, Senior Panel Counsel Geeta Singhwal submitted that the impugned SFC proceedings were conducted in a fair, impartial, and transparent manner, strictly in compliance with the procedure prescribed under the ITBPF Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

It is contended that the order has been passed after due consideration of the facts of the case and the applicable legal provisions, and does not suffer from any infirmity.

It is further contended that the petitioner was dismissed from service only after being duly tried and found guilty of serious misconduct, namely disobedience of a lawful command of a superior officer and involvement in an illegal gratification arrangement in connection with recruitment, thereby attracting the provisions of Sections 23(2)(b) (if he commits such offence when not on active duty, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned) and 44(e) (directly or indirectly accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain, for himself or for any other person, any gratification as a motive or reward for procuring the enrolment of any person, or leave of absence, promotion or any other advantage or indulgence for any person in the
service) of the ITBPF Act.

Court’s findings

• The record reflects that the petitioner was duly charge-sheeted, the record of evidence was prepared, and he was thereafter tried by the SFC upon due notice.
• Mere expeditious conduct of proceedings cannot be equated with arbitrariness or denial of opportunity, particularly in the absence of any specific prejudice demonstrated by the petitioner.
• No material has been placed on record to show that the petitioner was handicapped in defending himself on account of the timeline of proceedings.

• The record further reflected that the team was again briefed by the presiding officer, reiterating such instructions, and that the petitioner disobeyed these directions by appearing in uniform and functioning as an invigilator despite being assigned mess duty.
• The proceedings were conducted in due compliance with the statutory provisions, and no violation of principles of natural justice has been established.
• In Randir Singh v Union of India, the Supreme Court interfered on account of material procedural irregularities and denial of fair opportunity in the conduct of disciplinary proceedings.
• Similarly, in Ex CCT/GD Griver Singh v Union of India, interference was premised on deficiencies in the evidentiary foundation and procedural lapses in terms of Section 82 of the ITBPF Act, affecting the fairness of the inquiry.
• No such infirmity is borne out from the record in the present case. On the contrary, the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity at every stage and has failed to demonstrate any prejudice.