SSFC Trial Isn't A Mere Formality; Accused's Rights Must Also Be Safeguarded: Delhi HC Directs Union To Provide Mandatory Training To Presiding Officers

The Court also directed the Union of India that Officers, who hold SSFCs, be provided mandatory regular training on the subject of conducting the SSFC proceedings in accordance with the law.

The Division Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Shalinder Kaur held, “It, thus, becomes incumbent upon the Officers conducting the SSFC proceedings to be properly trained and sensitized of the manner in which the SSFC proceedings ought to be conducted, i.e. by giving due regard to the rules and procedures outlined in the BSF Act and Rules. The Presiding Officers holding the SSFC must understand that these trials are not just mere formalities but are a fundamental aspect of ensuring justice and maintaining discipline in the Force by following the prescribed procedure. The Presiding Officers have to be sensitized on these matters in order to safeguard the rights of the accused as well as the commitment of the Force in upholding the rule of law and maintaining the highest standards of discipline within its ranks. Failure thereof, will only result in miscarriage of justice, for both the individuals as well as the Force.”

Advocate Vinod Dahiya appeared for the Petitioner whereas SPC Rishabh Sahu and Advocate Sameer Sharma appeared for the Respondent.

A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India emanated from the SSFC proceedings which convicted the petitioner based on his purported “plea of guilty” for his alleged role in the smuggling of “phenesdyl” from Bangladesh to India. Consequently, SSFC awarded his dismissal from service vide the impugned order against which a statutory petition filed by him before the Inspector General, Border Security Force (BSF) came to be dismissed vide the other impugned order. Thus, the petitioner sought quashing of the impugned orders besides praying for reinstatement in service with all due benefits accruing to him.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that SSFC findings were liable to be set aside on the sole ground of procedural defects itself. The SSFC proceedings, he contended have been conducted without complying with the BSF Act and Rules. In fact, even the ROE proceedings of the SSFC were also vitiated, having been completed after an inordinate delay.

The counsel submitted that there was a blatant violation of Rule 63(6) of the BSF Rules, a copy of the chargesheet was not supplied to the petitioner 24 hours before the commencement of the trial by the SSFC as contemplated under the said Rule. Therefore, non-compliance with Rule 63(6), he contended, had led to gross injustice, thereby impairing the right of the petitioner to have sufficient time to prepare his defence.

The Court referred to Rule 63 of the BSF Rules and said that a disciplinary inquiry/trial by the Security Force Court is not meant to be conducted mechanically as a mere formality, but should be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the laid down procedure, to enable the disciplinary authority to take an informed decision. The entire purpose of issuance of a Charge-Sheet is to enable the noticee to respond to the allegations based on which, action against him is proposed.

“In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the respondent had acted in violation of the Rules by not providing copies of the Charge-Sheet and the ROE to the petitioner atleast 24 hours before the trial.”, the Court observed.

As regards the submission of the Petitioner that he was coerced by the Commandant to plead “guilty” to the Charge, who without explaining to him the contents of the Charge, had made him sign the “plea of guilty”, the Court held that Rule 142 provides that on the accused pleading guilty before a finding of guilt is recorded, the Court is essentially required to ascertain whether the accused understands the nature and meaning of the Charge to which he has pleaded guilty; he must also be informed of the general effects of that plea and of the difference in procedure to be followed upon taking the plea of ‘guilty’.

Additionally, the Court added if it appears from the record or the abstract of evidence that the accused ought to have pleaded “not guilty”, the Court is required to advise the accused to withdraw that plea of ‘guilty’ and proceed with the trial after recording a plea of “not guilty”.

The Court held, “Having dealt with the claims raised in the present petition, we may also note that this Court has been coming across several cases where the SSFC proceedings are being conducted in a lackadaisical and perfunctory manner by disregarding the rules and procedures laid under the BSF Act and Rules. It is also being noticed that despite there being no urgency, SSFC proceedings are being conducted in almost every case as a matter of routine. The provisions providing for other kinds of Security Force Courts which lay down more elaborate procedures for trial are very rarely being resorted to. This raises a serious concern as any deviation from the Rules and the laid down procedure during the trial not only compromises the rights of the accused but also results in grave injustice especially in cases where the trials, pertaining to misconduct committed by the Force personnel, ends with an award of a major penalty of dismissal from service. Such a harsh penalty can have a lifelong implications not only for the officer involved but for this entire family.”

Accordingly, the Court, while allowing the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders and directed the Union to reinstate the Petitioner in service.

Cause Title: Rajneesh v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:6470-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Vinod Dahiya, Saaransh Sharma and Vandana Dahiya

Respondent: SPC Rishabh Sahu and Advocate Sameer Sharma

Click here to read/download the Judgment