New Delhi, April 8 (Delhi Crown): While upholding his dismissal from service, a Supreme Court judge on Friday told a Border Security Force (BSF) officer to go and grab a bottle of liquor!
The BSF officer was dismissed from his service as he was found guilty of being drunk during duty hours, several years ago.
A SC bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Aniruddha Bose made it abundantly clear that given the conduct of the officer, it would “not interfere” with the order passed by the Summary Security Force Court to dismiss him from service.
The dismissal order was later affirmed by the Director General Border Security Force, Single Judge and Division Bench of the Meghalaya High Court.
“You have pleaded guilty, you were intoxicated during duty and the plea is that you are disturbed, you go and grab a bottle of liquor. That is the end of the matter. We will not interfere,” said Justice Chandrachud said while looking at the dismissed BSF officer.
The SC judge added – “You pleaded guilty, you admitted to be intoxicated, what can we do? You are in the Border Security Force.”
When the petitioner’s Counsel protested calling the punishment imposed as a “harsh one”, Justice Chandrachud remarked – “Obviously, it would be harsh, you cannot be drunk on duty being BSF. There are some offences, where we cannot interfere.”
The officer was dismissed from service after he was found guilty on the basis of two charge-sheets containing two charges each. The first charge sheet was under Section 40 and 26 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, inter alia, for intoxication. The officer pleaded guilty.
In the second charge-sheet under Section 20(c) and 21(1) of the Border Security Act, also, he pleaded guilty.
Consequently, in compliance with Rule 142(2) of the BSF Rules, 1969, an order of dismissal from service was passed on April 1, 2016. The said order was challenged before the Director General Border Security Force.
Upon dismissal of the same, a writ petition was filed before the Meghalaya High Court. Considering the circumstances, the High Court opined that the quantum of punishment was proportionate to the charges and found no ground for interference. A writ appeal was filed before the Division Bench.
Condemning the appeal as utterly baseless and a complete waste of time by a recalcitrant erstwhile BSF employee, the Division Bench had dismissed it.