Mr. Biju Kumar R vs Union Of India & Anr.

$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
Date of decision: 31 July, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010343882026
+ W.P.(C) 10712/2026 & CM APPL. 49615/2026
MR. BIJU KUMAR R
Ex- Head Constable (GD)
No. 954032111
13/246, Kaniyentayyathu, Pada North
P.O. Karunagarpally
District Kollam (Kerala) – 690518
…Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pranav Krishna,
Mr.Ankur Vyas and
Ms.Srishti Mayank,
Advocates

Versus

1. UNION OF INDIA (Ministry of Home Affairs)
Through Secretary
North Block
New Delhi – 110001
Email: [email protected]
…Respondent No. 1

2. BORDER SECURITY FORCE
Through
The Director General
Force Headquarters
Block 10, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road
New Delhi – 110003
Email: [email protected] / [email protected]
…Respondent No. 2

Through: Mr. Bhagwan Swarup
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANI
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
W.P.(C) 10712/2026 Page 1 of 17

Shukla, CGSC
Mr.Deepansh Sharma,
GP and Ms.Jyoti,
Advocates


CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

JUDGMENT (ORAL)
AMIT SHARMA, J.


1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, 1950 seeks the following prayers:-
“a. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing
and setting aside the Dismissal Order dated 10.03.2025
passed by the Summary Security Force Court, STC BSF
Churachandpur, Manipur and the Rejection Order dated
17.04.2026 passed by the Director General, BSF;

b. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the
Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in service with all
consequential benefits including back wages, pension,
and other service benefits as may be found due and
payable;

c. in the alternative, direct the Respondents to revise the
punishment from dismissal to a lesser punishment as
deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Court;

d. pass such further orders as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE
PETITIONER, AS IS DUTY BOUND, SHALL EVER
PRAY.”

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANI
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
W.P.(C) 10712/2026 Page 2 of 17

2. The relevant facts necessary for the adjudication of the present
petition in brief are as under: -
(a) The petitioner was posted as Nursing Assistant/Physiotherapist
at the STC BSF Churachandpur, Manipur;
(b) One recruit constable (GD), i.e. , the complainant, lodged a
written complaint alleging misconduct by the petitioner during his
admission at the aforesaid hospital, with regard to disgraceful conduct
of an unnatural kind;
(c) Following a record of evidence, the Summary Security Force
Court (SSFC) tried and convicted the petitioner under Section 24 (a)
of the BSF Act, 1968, and sentenced him with the punishment of
“dismissal from service” vide order dated 10th March, 2025;
(d) The petitioner, thereafter, preferred a petition under Rule 167
(2) of the Border Security Rules, 1969, read with Section 117 of the
Border Security Force Act, 1968 before the Statutory Authority i.e.
th
Director General (DG), which was rejected vide order dated 17
April, 2025 passed by the Statutory Authority;
(e) Hence, the present petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has served as Head Constable for approximately 29 years and 4
months, earning 15 rewards and carrying only one minor punishment in the
year 2003. It is the submitted that the proceedings before the SSFC suffers
from fundamental infirmity, inasmuch as there existed material variance
between the charge framed and the findings given by the SSFC. It is pointed
out that the charge under Section 24 (a)- ‘Disgraceful conduct of indecent
kind’ of the said Act was confined to a single incident, which alleged to
th
have occurred on 11 February, 2025 at 0030 hours. However, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANI
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
W.P.(C) 10712/2026 Page 3 of 17

th
prosecution included earlier alleged incidents across two days, i.e. , 9 and
th
10 February, 2025. It is further submitted that the conviction rests only on
the sole testimony of the complainant (PW-1), which is materially
inconsistent with his written complaint dated 11.02.2025 and his statement
during ROE dated 21.02.2025. The said contradictions have been placed on
record, by way of a table which is reproduced hereinbelow: -



Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANI
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
W.P.(C) 10712/2026 Page 4 of 17

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANI
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
W.P.(C) 10712/2026 Page 5 of 17

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner that the Statutory Authority exercising quasi -judicial power, was
required to pass a speaking order on each of the grounds raised; however,
the same has not been done. Moreover, it is argued that the rejection order
uses pejorative language describing the petitioner as exhibiting ‘sexual
perversion’ and someone who ‘pounces upon young recruits’, demonstrating
a pre-determined mind, and thus, there was a failure to judicially adjudicate
in a detached and objective manner. It is also the submission of learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the latter has been labelled
as ‘habitual offender’ on the basis of single minor punishment in the year
2003.
5. It is also urged by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner that the material witnesses and documents from the concerned
hospital were not recorded or produced. It is also submitted that there was
denial of real and meaningful assistance under Rule 157 of the aforesaid
Rules read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, the
friend of accused was an Officer from the same unit, who conducted no
effective cross-examination and summoned no material witnesses on record.
6. Finally, it is the case of the petitioner that without prejudice to his
case on merits, even if the charges were proved, then also the punishment of
dismissal from service, based on the aforesaid record is grossly
disproportionate, and therefore, a lenient view ought to have been taken by
the respondents.
7. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents,
who appears on an advance notice, submits that the proceedings before the
SSFC suffer from no infirmity, as all the statutory rules and procedures were
duly followed. It is further submitted that petitioner was given due
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANI
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
W.P.(C) 10712/2026 Page 6 of 17

opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, and he had availed the said
opportunity, and same was duly appreciated by the statutory authority vide
th
the rejection order dated 17 April, 2026, and therefore, the present petition
deserves dismissal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. The charge preferred against the petitioner at the trial is as under:-
BSF ACT,
1968
SECTION-
24(a)

DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT OF AN UNNATURAL
KIND

in that he,
at Hospital of STC BSF Churachandpur (Manipur) on
11.02.2025 at about 0030 hrs while performing duty as
physiotherapist committed disgraceful conduct of an
unnatural kind with Roll No.4207033847 Recruit Constable
(GD) Prabhat Kumar Singh, "B" Coy, while he was
admitted at Hospital of STC BSF Churachandpur
(Manipur).

10. During the proceeding before the SSFC, 8 witnesses were examined.
Gist of the testimonies of the said witnesses, as noted by the Statutory
Authority in the order dated 17th April, 2026, read as under:-

“8. Before offering comments on the issues raised by the
petitioner in his petition, it would be appropriate to bring
on record the evidence available in the trial proceedings
in respect of the charge in brief:-

(a) Recruit CT (GD) Prabhat Kumar Singh (PW-1) stated
that on 07.02.2025 during the Roll Call at about 1500 hrs,
dust particle entered his left eye, due to strong wind,
which caused irritation in his left eye. On 09.02.2025, as
per direction of CHM HC (GD) Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi,
PW-1 went to the hospital alone at about 1600 hrs, where
Dr. Laxman Singh, CMO (SG), STC BSF Churachandpur
and two Nursing Assistants tried to remove the dust
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANI
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
W.P.(C) 10712/2026 Page 7 of 17

particle, but could not do so. Then, CMO (SG) directed
that he should be checked by an ophthalmologist at
District Hospital, Churachandpur on 10.02.2025.
Thereafter, as per direction of Dr. Valera Pasi, DC
(SMO), (PW-7), PW-1 was shifted to an improvised
temporary structure near the main hospital building. On
direction of the petitioner, PW-1 called Recruit Constable
(GD) Vinay Kumar Yadav, PW-4 with blanket, mobile
charger and slipper etc. At about 1815 hrs, Recruit CT
(GD) Vinay Kumar Yadav, PW-4 went away to bring his
dinner. After about 10 minutes, the petitioner entered into
the room and approached PW-1 's bed and started
massaging his forehead, ear lobes, eyes and subsequently
he pressed his chest, massaged his thighs and then
brought his hands to PW-1 ' s private part over the pants.
While he was doing this, PW-1 asked the petitioner as to
what was he doing. To this the petitioner replied that by
doing so the dust particle would automatically come out
and PW-1 just needed to relax, not think too much and
keep sleeping. This activity lasted for about one minute
and thereafter, the petitioner went away on his own . PW-
1 told his friends namely CT (GD) Vinay Kumar Yadav,
PW-4, Rectt CT (GD) Abhijeet Kumar, PW-2 and Rectt
CT (GD) Kunal Kumar Singh, PW-3 about everything the
petitioner did to him. Next day, on 10.02.2025, PW-1
appeared before the eye specialist at District Hospital,
who suggested that if the irritation persists till
19.02.2025, then minor surgery would be performed to
remove the dust particle from his eye. Then, PW-1
returned to the hospital and informed the same to Dr
Laxman Singh, CMO (SG) and thereafter, PW-1 remained
at hospital. In the evening, while he was laying in the
room, the petitioner arrived in the room and started
massaging his (PW-1) forehead, eyes, ear, chest, thigh
and the petitioner also touched his private part. The
petitioner did it for about one to one and half minutes and
then he went away. After this he came out of his room and
went to the main patient's ward where PW-1 told the
petitioner that he is feeling scared being alone. However,
the petitioner refused his request to shift PW-1 in main
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANI
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
W.P.(C) 10712/2026 Page 8 of 17

ward and again directed PW-1 to go and sleep in the
same room alone . He again went back to same room and
quietly slept there alone. Nearly at about 2200 or 2230
hrs, the petitioner again entered the room and started
massaging his forehead, eyes and private part. This went
on for about minute and half and he went away. After the
petitioner left, PW-1 got very scared and he could not
sleep and he kept on watching his mobile. In the midnight
at about 2400 hrs, the petitioner again entered the room
and started massaging face, ears and immediately come -
down and pulled down PW-1 's trouser including his
underwear. The petitioner immediately took PW-1's penis
in his mouth. PW-1 immediately reacted and said that "ye
app kya kar rahe ho ye respect ke naam par doglapan
hai'. After this the petitioner immediately disengaged
himself and went out of the door and kept standing over
there for about eight to nine seconds hiding himself and
listening his (PW-1) utterances. Then he moved away
from there. PW-1 immediately put on his shoe , collected
his bedding, charger and went away to his barrack. After
reaching his barrack, PW-1 narrated the incident to his
friends namely Rectt. CT (GD) Kunal Kumar Singh &
Abhijeet Kumar, PW-2. Thereafter, PW-1 and his friends
went to the staff barrack and informed the whole matter to
the CHM. Next day, PW-1 submitted written complaint
(Exhibit-'L') about this matter to the Coy Comdr Shri
Manoj Kumar Meel, Asstt Comdt. During cross-
examination, PW-1 said that because on 11.02.2025, he
had submitted the written complaint in haste and since
this incident happened with him so many time, under
confusion he gave in writing in his initial report that on
09.02.2025, it happened with him twice, but in reality, it
had happened only once on 09.02.2025 and thrice on
10.02.2025.

(b) Recruit CT (GD) Abhijeet Kumar, PW-2 , Recruit CT
(GD) Kunal Kumar Singh, PW-3 and Recruit CT (GD)
Vinay Kumar Yadav , PW-4 have generally corroborated
the statement of PW-1 regarding PW-1 's sharing the
information of incident with them. Further, PW-2, PW-3
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANI
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
W.P.(C) 10712/2026 Page 9 of 17

and PW-4 have submitted their written statement (Exhibit-
'M ', 'N' & 'P') respectively.

(c) HC (GD) Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi, PW-5 has stated that
he had performed the duties of CHM, 'B' Coy w.e.f.
05.02.2025 to 26.02.2025. On 09.02.2025, at about 1630
hrs, Rectt (CT) Prabhat Kumar Singh, PW-1 came to him
and told about irritation in his eye. PW-5 directed PW-1
to go to hospital alongwith Sick Report Register. Later,
PW-5. came to know that PW-1 had been admitted in
hospital, so, PW-5 directed Rectt CT (GD) Vinay Kumar
Yadav, PW-4 to be PW-1's as attender. On 11.02.2025, at
about 0118 hrs , PW-1 Prabhat Kumar Singh said that he
was very scared and he had run away from hospital and is
standing in training ground, then, PW-5 called him near
staff barrack. CT Prabhat Kumar Singh met with him
alongwith CT Abhijeet Kumar and CT Kunal Kumar
Singh and narrated the incident. He was alone in the
room, got scared and ran away from the hospital. Then ,
PW-5 told all of them go to barrack and sleep there.
Thereafter, PW-1 informed the matter to the Coy 2IC
Inspector Praveen Kumar Negi and also informed CT
(NA) Arif Hussain that CT Prabhat Kumar Singh , PW-1
had returned to the barrack. Next day, PW-5 submitted a
written report (Exhibit-'Q') about the matter to the Coy
Commander.

(d) No. 050010011 Inspector (GD) Praveen Kumar, ·PW-
6 stated that on 09.02.2025, at around 1900 hrs, CHM
HC (GD) Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi , PW-5 informed him that
Rectt CT (GD) Prabhat Kumar Singh, PW-1 was admitted
to STC hospital because of irritation in his eye which
further informed by PW-6 to the Coy Comdr Shri Manoj
Kumar Meel , Asstt Comdt at about 2000 hrs. On
11.02.2025, at about 0130 hrs, CHM informed PW-6 that
PW-1 had informed him that at around 2400 hrs, one of
the hospital staff who is non Hindi speaking had touched
him inappropriately and after pulling down his pants, put
PW-1 's penis in his mouth. The said information was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANI
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
W.P.(C) 10712/2026 Page 10 of 17

conveyed to the Coy Comdr through WhatsApp message
at about 0154 hs on 11.02.2025.

(e) Dr. Valera Pasi, DC (SMO), PW-7 stated that on
09.02.2025 at about 1700 hrs, when she reached the
hospital, she saw Dr. Laxman Singh, CMO (SG), in the
dressing room, trying to remove foreign particle from the
of Rectt Constable (GD) Prabhat Kumar Singh, PW-1.
Despite his best efforts, the dust particle could not be
removed, so Dr. Laxman Singh, CMO (SG) referred Rectt
CT (GD) Prabhat Kumar Singh, PW-1 to District
Hospital, Churachandpur. Then she advised PW-1
ofloxacin two drops in eye once only and also said that if
the patient was comfortable, he could go to the barrack
otherwise he could stay there. On 10.02.2025, in the
evening time, PW-7 called Rectt CT (GD) Prabhat Kumar
Singh , PW-1 and inquired from him about his visit to
District Hospital, Churachandpur. PW-7 saw his
prescription and observed that the next date of
consultation was 19.02.2025 and one eye drop was
prescribed. Later on, the petitioner alongwith Rectt CT
(GD) Prabhat Kumar Singh, PW-1 approached her at
about 1930 hrs for direction as to whether PW-1 would
stay in the hospital or would go the barrack. PW-7
suggested that he could go to the barrack. On this Rectt
CT (GD) Prabhat Kumar, PW-1 requested that he be
allowed to stay in hospital for two to three days more as if
he was sent back to the coy then he would be employed in
working parade which would expose him to further dust
and heat. Then PW-7 allowed him to stay there for some
time.”

11. At this stage, a useful reference can be made to the judgment of the
1
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Major A. Hussain , with
respect to power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, 1950, in respect of Court Martial(s). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in

1
(1998) 1 SCC 537
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANI
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
W.P.(C) 10712/2026 Page 11 of 17

the said judgment, while holding that the Court Martial is not subject to
superintendency under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, had observed
and held as under:-

“ 22. We find the proceedings of the General Court-Martial to
be quite immaculate where trial was fair and every possible
opportunity was afforded to the respondent to defend his case.
Rather it would appear that the respondent made all efforts to
delay the proceedings of the court-martial. Thrice he sought the
intervention of the High Court. Withdrawal of the defence
counsel in the midst of the proceedings was perhaps also a part
of his plan to delay the proceedings and to make that a ground
if the respondent was ultimately convicted and sentenced.
Services of qualified defending officer were made available to
the respondent to defend his case, but he had rejected their
services without valid reasons. He was repeatedly asked to give
the names of the defending officers of his choice but he declined
to do so. The court-martial had been conducted in accordance
with the Act and Rules and it is difficult to find any fault in the
proceedings. The Division Bench said that the learned Single
Judge minutely examined the record of the court-martial
proceedings and after that came to the conclusion that the
respondent was denied reasonable opportunity to defend
himself. We think this was a fundamental mistake committed by
the High Court. It was not necessary for the High Court to
minutely examine the record of the General Court-Martial as if
it was sitting in appeal. We find that on merit, the High Court
has not said that there was no case against the respondent to
hold him guilty of the offence charged.

23. Though court-martial proceedings are subject to judicial
review by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution,
the court-martial is not subject to the superintendence of the
High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. If a court-
martial has been properly convened and there is no challenge
to its composition and the proceedings are in accordance with
the procedure prescribed, the High Court or for that matter any
court must stay its hands. Proceedings of a court-martial are
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANI
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
W.P.(C) 10712/2026 Page 12 of 17

not to be compared with the proceedings in a criminal court
under the Code of Criminal Procedure where adjournments
have become a matter of routine though that is also against the
provisions of law. It has been rightly said that court-martial
remains to a significant degree, a specialised part of overall
mechanism by which the military discipline is preserved. It is
for the special need for the armed forces that a person subject
to Army Act is tried by court-martial for an act which is an
offence under the Act. Court-martial discharges judicial
function and to a great extent is a court where provisions of
Evidence Act are applicable. A court-martial has also the same
responsibility as any court to protect the rights of the accused
charged before it and to follow the procedural safeguards. If
one looks at the provisions of law relating to court-martial in
the Army Act, the Army Rules, Defence Service Regulations and
other Administrative Instructions of the Army, it is manifestly
clear that the procedure prescribed is perhaps equally fair if
not more than a criminal trial provides to the accused. When
there is sufficient evidence to sustain conviction, it is
unnecessary to examine if pre-trial investigation was adequate
or not. Requirement of proper and adequate investigation is not
jurisdictional and any violation thereof does not invalidate the
court-martial unless it is shown that the accused has been
prejudiced or a mandatory provision has been violated. One
may usefully refer to Rule 149 quoted above. The High Court
should not allow the challenge to the validity of conviction and
sentence of the accused when evidence is sufficient, court-
martial has jurisdiction over the subject-matter and has
followed the prescribed procedure and is within its powers to
award punishment.”

12. Keeping in mind the aforesaid dictum , this Court has examined the
records.
13. Admittedly, the offence against the petitioner is serious in nature.
14. As per the proceedings recorded, an opportunity was given to the
petitioner to call for defence and make a statement. As per record, the
petitioner declined to call the witnesses; however, he gave a written
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANI
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
W.P.(C) 10712/2026 Page 13 of 17

statement wherein he stated that he had put eye drops in the eyes of PW-1
and asked to move his eyes up and down, and further instructed him not to
look at the light and use mobile, as per the instructions given to him by Dr.
Laxman Singh, CMO. In the said written statement, the petitioner had
further stated that he did not understand as to why PW-1 was trying to frame
him by making false allegations. He further stated that 3 recruit constables
were present in the hospital when he was administering eye drops in PW-1’s
eyes at 18:50 Hours on 09.02.2025. The record of the SSFC placed on
record by the petitioner further demonstrates that out of eight witnesses, the
petitioner had only cross-examined PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6.
15. At no stage of the proceedings before the SSFC, in the statutory
petition filed before the DG, BSF, or in the present petition has the petitioner
alleged that the complainant was actuated by any motive to falsely implicate
him. Even as per the own case of the petitioner, the complainant was a new
recruit and was completely unknown to him, who had been admitted in the
hospital for an eye procedure. The complainant in his complaint, as well as
testimony recorded before the SSFC, has been consistent with respect to the
time and date of the incident.
16. The argument of the petitioner that there was no eye witness to the
incident, is untenable. It is settled law that in such cases the testimony of the
complainant is sufficient and it needs no corroboration. The evidence also
shows that the other witnesses namely, CT (GD) Vinay Kumar Yadav (PW-
4), Rectt CT (GD) Abhijeet Kumar (PW-2), and Rectt CT (GD) Kunal
Kumar Singh, to whom the complainant had told about everything the
petition did to him, were present on the day of the incident, and even
otherwise, the perusal of the record would reflect that the incident had
occurred when there was no one around. The complainant, i.e. , PW-1, had
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANI
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
W.P.(C) 10712/2026 Page 14 of 17

gone on record to state that immediately after the incident, he had shared the
same with the other colleagues, and had reported the matter to his superior.
The fact that a new recruit, completely unknown to the petitioner, has gone
on record to make the aforesaid allegations, thereby exposing himself, is a
material circumstance to be considered in the present case. It is highly
unlikely for a person to make an allegation of the present nature against a
totally unknown person, thereby exposing himself to social embarrassment
in front of his colleagues.
17. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner with
respect to contradictions, as alleged in the testimony of the complainant, is
concerned, a perusal of the same would reflect that the same are not material
th
in nature, inasmuch as, the main allegation of the incident occurring on 9
February, 2025 has been consistently stated by PW-1. It is also matter of
record that opportunity was given and availed by the petitioner to cross-
examine PW-1; however, the aforesaid contradictions were never put to the
said witness. Another aspect which requires consideration is that admittedly
the petitioner had earlier been found guilty of a similar charge under Section
24 (a) of the Act, for ‘Disgraceful conduct of an unnatural kind’ in the year
th
2003. It is the case of the respondent that on 28 March, 2003, the
petitioner had committed a similar act with recruit of ‘B’ Coy, STC BSF
Kashmir, where the said personnel was admitted in MI Room of STC BSF
Kashmir. The petitioner was found guilty of the said charge, and was given
th
28 days RI in force custody on 14 August, 2003.
18. In these circumstances, it will be reasonable to conclude that the
petitioner, who had faced similar charges on the previous occasion, was
well-versed with the proceedings, and the plea now taken by the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANI
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
W.P.(C) 10712/2026 Page 15 of 17

that the friend of the accused had not conducted effective cross-examination
of the witnesses, is an afterthought.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out from record to
show that such an objection was taken at the relevant point of time while the
SSFC proceedings were ongoing. Even in the written statement given by the
petitioner before the SSFC, no objection had been taken with regard to the
procedure followed for denial of the right of effective cross-examination of
the petitioner.
20. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with
respect to disproportionate punishment awarded to him, is concerned, it is
pertinent to note that the same was raised before the statutory authority and
was dealt in the following manner: -

“10.



(b) With regard to the contents of Para-07(b), it is found
that the severity of the punishment is justified given the
gravity of the offense. Dismissal is a proportionate
response to maintain discipline and order within the
Force. Maximum punishment for the offense u/s 24(a) of
the Act is 7 years imprisonment. According to the
provisions of Section 50 of the Act, dismissal can be a
combined punishment along with imprisonment, but the
SSFC has already taken lenient view and awarded the
sentence of dismissal only, with a view to maintain the
Force discipline, which is considered backbone of BSF. In
a case where a trained BSF soldier, who is required to be
exemplary in conduct, fails to uphold his character and
conduct high, indulges himself in such disgraceful
conduct of indecent/unnatural kind and , therefore, such
person is not worthy to be continued in service to the
nation. Continuing him in the Force would not only be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANI
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
W.P.(C) 10712/2026 Page 16 of 17

against the law & discipline, but also against the morale
of the entire Force. The SSFC carefully considered the
facts of the case, including petitioner's actions and the
impact on the organization. While the petitioner argues
that the punishment is disproportionate, the decision to
dismiss him from service is justified given the severity of
the offense and the need to-maintain discipline within. the
Force. In light of these factors the outcome of his trial is a
reasonable and logical consequence of petitioner's
actions, and the disciplinary process was conducted in
accordance with established procedures and principles of
fairness. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner here is
not reasonable and rejected.”

21. In the considered opinion of this Court, the observations made by the
Statutory Authority are in line with the severity of the offence committed by
the petitioner, and overall interest of the force.
22. In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere
with the impugned order passed by the Statutory Authority, as well as
th
dismissal order dated 10 March, 2025 passed by SSFC, Manipur, in the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
23. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed and disposed of.
24. Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.






NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE

(JUDGE)




AMIT SHARMA
(JUDGE)
JULY 31, 2026/ nk/ns
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANI
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
W.P.(C) 10712/2026 Page 17 of 17