Summary Security Force Court's Verdict Without Recording Reasons Not Illegal: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court held that per Rules 148 and 149 of the Border Security Force (BSF) Rules, 1968 the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) is not required to furnish reasons during its adjudication process and a mere declaration of the individual's guilt is deemed sufficient.
The Court, in a writ petition filed by an Individual seeking to quash the orders issued by the SSFC and the Director General, BSF respectively. These orders resulted in the Petitioner's dismissal from service following allegations of sexual harassment made by a lady constable during his posting at Border Outpost (BOP).
The Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Manoj Jain observed, “It was observed that SSFC was not required to give any reason under Rule 149 of BSF Rules. It also noticed that though Rule 99 of BSF Rules had been amended which required General Security Force Court (GSFC) to provide reasons but there was no corresponding amendment in Rule 149 of BSF Rules which was applicable in the case of SSFC”.
Advocate Rakesh Kumar appeared for the Petitioner and Standing Counsel Jatinder Kaur appeared for the Union.
The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the orders issued by the SSFC and the Director General, BSF respectively. These orders resulted in the Petitioner's dismissal from service following allegations of sexual harassment made by a lady constable during his posting at BOP. The Petitioner had also filed a writ petition with the High Court of Calcutta, urging a decision on the statutory appeal, which was eventually dismissed.
The Court noted its limited role as it cannot function as an Appellate Court to reevaluate evidence presented before the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC). However, the Bench observed that Courts can intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if there is a clear indication of a violation of principles of natural justice, a gross breach of established procedures, or a denial of a fair trial. The Court emphasized that a fair trial, as protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, includes adherence to relevant statutory provisions, including those outlined in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
“Before touching the aspect evidence led before SSFC, we need to remind ourselves that this Court cannot act as appellate court and reassess and reappraise the evidence. However, indubitably, if we come across any instance suggesting violation of principles of natural justice or gross violation of the laid down procedure or denial of fair trial, the intervention can be made exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The aspect of fair trial enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India also implies adherence to relevant statutory provisions including those contained under Indian Evidence Act”, the Bench added.
The Court noted that Ms A, a constable in the BSF, alleged instances of sexual harassment by the Petitioner, a Nursing Assistant, during two separate incidents. In the first incident, while transporting her to the hospital, allegedly touched her inappropriately after administering an injection. In the second incident, when Petitioner along with the driver, took her to a doctor, but allegedly locked the door, forcibly tried to touch her, and made inappropriate comments. Ms A reported the incidents to her seniors after confiding in another constable who claimed similar experiences.
The Bench further noted that after receiving a sexual harassment complaint, the matter was promptly referred to a Complaint Committee established under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (Workplace Harassment Act). The committee thoroughly examined relevant witnesses and recommended stringent disciplinary measures against the petitioner. The Bench observed that the offence in question falls under Section 46 of the BSF Act 1968, and the charge sheet was sent for concurrence from the DIG, as mandated by Section 74(2) of the BSF Act before the petitioner was formally charged.
The Cout rejected the Petitioner’s contention regarding being tried by the same Commandant in the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC). The Court noted that the Commandant, being empowered by the procedure for SSFC, was authorized to serve the charge sheet and preside over the trial. The Bench observed that, according to the statutory provisions, the SSFC's simple finding of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" without detailed reasons did not constitute illegality. The Court emphasized that the Commandant did not find it necessary to provide a special finding in this case.
Additionally, the bench observed, while referring to the case of Union of India v Dinesh Kumar [(2010) 3 SCC 161], that SSFC was not required to give reasons under Rule 149 of BSF Rules, and there was no corresponding amendment in Rule 149 despite the amendment in Rule 99 for the General Security Force Court. The Court reiterated that proceedings involving sexual misconduct should not be invalidated based on hyper-technical interpretations and should be interpreted to ensure procedural and substantive justice to all parties.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Deepak v Director General Of Border Security Force And Ors (2023:DHC:8976-DB)
