Court rules dismissal valid despite lack of Security Force Court trial, citing sufficient evidence and public interest
In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court has upheld the dismissal of Md. Farhad Zaman, a Border Security Force (BSF) personnel, accused of accepting illegal gratification during a recruitment process. The decision was rendered by Justice Amrita Sinha on April 9, 2026, in response to a writ petition challenging the dismissal order issued by the Commandant of Zaman's battalion on December 2, 2023.
Md. Farhad Zaman was dismissed from service after allegations surfaced that he accepted bribes from job aspirants to declare them 'fit' during the detailed medical examination for recruitment into the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), National Investigation Agency (NIA), Special Security Force (SSF), and Assam Rifles. The incident reportedly occurred between January and February 2020 in Malda, involving several BSF personnel and civilians.
The petitioner argued against his dismissal, stating the lack of a formal Security Force Court trial and contending that his dismissal was premature as the criminal proceedings against him were still pending. He claimed procedural irregularities, including non-compliance with principles of natural justice and the absence of subjective satisfaction by the Commandant regarding his involvement in the alleged misconduct.
However, the High Court ruled in favor of the Union of India, stating that the dismissal was justified due to sufficient evidence of Zaman's involvement in corruption, including money trails and corroborative testimonies. The court noted that the Commandant's decision not to hold a Security Force Court trial was valid given the involvement of civilians and the impracticability of obtaining their evidence in such a court.
Justice Amrita Sinha emphasized the importance of maintaining the highest standards of integrity within the BSF, an Armed Force responsible for the security of India's borders. The judgment highlighted that retaining Zaman would jeopardize the morale of the Force and compromise national security, thus upholding his dismissal as being in the interest of the country.
The court also addressed the principles of natural justice, confirming that Zaman was served with a show-cause notice, informed of the allegations, and afforded the opportunity to respond. The explanation provided by Zaman was found unsatisfactory, leading to his dismissal.
The judgment cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, which mandates that an opportunity of hearing must be given prior to dismissal. The court found that Zaman had been given such an opportunity, which he availed but failed to satisfactorily disprove the allegations against him.
In dismissing the writ petition, Justice Sinha underscored that the serious allegations against Zaman and the presence of substantial evidence justified the dismissal from service without a Security Force Court trial. The judgment reiterated the need to uphold discipline and integrity within the Force, especially when charges of corruption threaten the security of the nation.
Bottom Line:
Dismissal of a BSF personnel for accepting illegal gratification from job aspirants during the recruitment process is valid, even without a Security Force Court trial, when sufficient evidence suggests involvement in criminal activities and retaining the individual would be against public interest and detrimental to the Force's integrity.
Statutory provision(s): Border Security Force Act, 1968 Section 11(2), Indian Penal Code Sections 120B/420, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 7, 7A, 8
MD. Farhad Zaman v. Union of India, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2880339
