The Supreme Court, on Friday, refused to entertain a plea filed by an erstwhile Border Security Force personnel who was dismissed from service, inter alia, on charge of being intoxicated while on duty.

 A 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, which was affirmed by the Director General Border Security Force, Single Judge and Division Bench of the Meghalaya High Court.  As the matter was called out for hearing, Justice Chandrachud remarked

 “You pleaded guilty, you admitted to be intoxicated, what can we do? You are in the Border Security Force.”

 The Counsel appearing on behalf of the officer apprised the Bench that while passing orders the Courts below and the concerned authorities did not take into account Rules 142 and 143 of the Border Security Force Rules.  Bemused by the conduct of the officer, who got intoxicated while on duty, Justice Chandrachud stated

 “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’s all. Attorney

  protested that the penalties imposed were severe. Judge

 Chandrachud said, “It’s obviously tough. You can’t get drunk while working as a border guard. Some crimes can’t be intervened.”

 Officers were dismissed from service after being convicted of two counts each with two counts. The first accusation was charged with drunkenness and other charges under Articles 40 and 26 of the 1968 Border Guard Act. 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 Border Security Force Rules, 1969, an order of dismissal from service was passed on 01.04.2016. 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. Given the circumstances, the High Court ruled that the decision was proportional to the accusation and there was no reason to interfere. A written objection has been filed with the department bank. The departmental bank has accused and dismissed the complaint of a resistant former border guard employee, saying it was completely unfounded and a complete waste of time.

Leave a Comment

× Need legal help?