'You Can't Be Drunk On Border Security Force Duty' : Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of BSF Officer

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 is the end of the matter. We will not interfere."

The Counsel protested that the punishment imposed was a harsh one.

Justice Chandrachud reckoned -

"Obviously, it would be harsh, you cannot be drunk on duty being Border Security Force. There are some offences, where we cannot interfere."

The officer was dismissed from service after he was found guilty on the basis of two charges 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 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. 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 Border Security Force employee, the Division Bench dismissed it.

[Case Title: A. Murali Krishna v. Union of India And Ors. SLP (C) No. 5995 of 2022]