Holding

The Commandant, as the prescribed authority, may validly dismiss a person under his command under Section 11(2) of the Border Security Force Act read with Rule 177 of the Rules, independent of any Security Force Court proceeding.

Summary

Gouranga Chakraborty, a constable in the Border Security Force (BSF), was dismissed by the Commandant for overstaying leave and being absent without leave during a period of war. After being given a chance to explain, which he failed to utilize, he appealed internally without success and subsequently filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that his dismissal was illegal. The trial court dismissed the suit, the Additional District Judge set it aside on the ground that dismissal required a Security Force Court order, but the Gauhati High Court reversed, holding that the Commandant could dismiss under Section 11(2) of the BSF Act and Rule 177. The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme and held that the Commandant's power to dismiss is an independent authority separate from the Security Force Court's jurisdiction, and that natural justice was not violated as the appellant was afforded an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the High Court's decision and upholding the dismissal as valid.

Issues considered

Whether dismissal of a BSF personnel for absence without leave must be ordered by a Security Force Court under Sections 48, 50 and 19 of the BSF Act.
Whether Section 11(2) of the BSF Act read with Rule 177 of the BSF Rules confers an independent power on the Commandant to dismiss without a Security Force Court trial.
Whether the dismissal violated Article 311 of the Constitution and the procedural safeguards prescribed in the BSF Rules.
Whether the Commandant complied with the requirement of giving the employee an opportunity to be heard under natural justice.

Legislation cited

Border Security Force Act, 1968s. 10, s. 11, s. 19, s. 4(2), s. 48, s. 50
Border Security Force Rules, 1969s. 177, s. 6
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 80

Subjects

Border Security ForceDismissalSecurity Force CourtSection 11(2)Rule 177Natural justiceArticle 311Military lawProcedural fairness

Judgment

J GOURANGA CHAKRABORTY
A
v.
STATE OF TRIPURAAND ANR.

MARCH 31, 1989

I IB.C. RAY AND S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, JJ.] B
\ Border Se(urity Force A.ct 1968/ Border Security Force Rules
1969. Section 4(2), 10, 11, 19, 48 and-50/Rules 6 and 177 Constable-
Dismissed from service by commandant for overstaying leave-Validity
of dismissal order-Whether Security Force Court-Should award
punishment.
c
.k The appellant was enrolled as a Constable in the BSF and was
serving as such since 1966. He was confirmed in the said post. In 1971,
he was granted leave from October 25, 1971 to October 30, 1971 on
account of the death of his father. As the Shrad ceremony could not be
performed within the aforesaid time, and he was suffering from serious D
illness he made an application requesting for extension of leave sup~
ported by a medical certificate. On December 12, 1971, the appellant
received a communicatio'1 from the Commandant stating that as he was
~- absent without leave from October 31, 1971, that because of such
absence without leave for a long period his further retention in service
was undesirable, and that it wm;-proposed to dismiss him from service. E

- He was asked to submit his explanation against the imposition of this
penalty. The appellant sent a telegram on December 21, 1971, hut
without any redress. On January 5, 1972 he received an order of the
Commandant informing him that he had been dismissed from service.
-.., On January 10, 1972, the appellant again sent an application requesting
that he may be permitted to join his service, but he was not allowed to F
do so. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Inspector General, BSF
i' on February 1, 1972 but no relief was granted.

The appellant after serving a notice under section 80 of the Code
of Civil Procedure filed a civil suit for a declaration that the order of
).;' dismissal from service was illegal and he was still in service. The res- G
''
pondent contested the suit and pleaded that the appellant was absent
f~om 1duty from Qctober 31, 1971 without any leave at a critical time ·whe11
India was at war with Pakistan, and that the Command_ant by his 11otice
dated 15 December 1971 intimated that his retention in service was
undesirable because of his absence. for a long period, that It• was given
an opportunity to urge his defence which he did not avaif of by sending H
271
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R.
--l,
any reply, and that the Commandant had therefore dismissed him from
A service by his order dated January 5, 1972. The Munsiff held that the
appellant had been given a reasonable opportunity before the Com-
maudant dismissed him from service, and dismissed the civil suit.

The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by the Additional
B District Judge and the suit was decreed. It was held that the order of
dismissal from service was illegal and bad, as the same was not made by
r
the Security Force Court and no such court had been constituted. The ,)-
order passed by the Commandant under section 11(2) of the Border
Security Force Act and read with rule 177 of the Rules could not there- ~

fore be upheld. It was further held that the order was bad as it was
contrary to the constitutional mandate embodied in Article 311 of the
c Constitution, as no opportunity of hearinl! was given, and the ;.(
procedural safeguards contained in Chapters VII to XI of the Border
Security Rules were not followed.

The High Court decreed the second appeal preferred by the
D respondents, reversed the judgment and decree of the lower appellate
court, and dismissed the suit. It was held that the order of dismissal of
the appellant from service had been made in accordance with the
powers conferred on the Commandant, BSF under the provisions of
section 11(2) and (4) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 read with +..
rule 177 of the Border Security Forces Rules, 1969. It was further held
E that this was an independent power conferred upon the Commandant
apart from the power conferred upon the Security Force Court under
section 28 for imposition of the punishment for dismissal from service in
respect of offences specified in section 19 of the Act.
-
In the appellant's appeal to this Court, it was contended that
unless and until the offence of absence without leave or overstaying
'r
F
leave granted to a member of the service, without sufficient cause is
tried by the Security Force Court and punishment is awarded therefor ..,
as provided in sections 48 and 50 of the Act,, the order of dismissal from
service by the Commandant is illegal and as such it is liable to be
quashed and set aside.
a 'l
Dismissing the appeal, it was,

HELD: I. The Prescribed Authority i.e. the Commandant is
competent to exercise the power under section 11(2) of the BSF Act and
to dismiss any person under his command as prescribed under Rule 177
» of the BSF Rules. [281E-F]
G. CHAKRABORTY v. STATE OF TRIPURA 273

2. The Border Security Force Act, 1968 has been enacted with a A
view to provide for the constitution and regulation of an armed force of
the Union for ensuring the security of the borders of India and for
matters connected therewith. The services of the enrolled pe.rsons under
the Act are governed by the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules
framed thereunder. [276DCE]
i 1 •
B
3. All the offences mentioned under sections 14 and 19 of the Act
-\, are to be tried by the Security Force Court, which will punish the
offende.rs with sentences as provided in the Act. A procedure has been
• provided by the BSF Rules for trial of the offences by the Security Force
Court and for awarding of punishment. [279E; 280BJ

4. The power under Section 11(2) empowering the Commandant
c
who is the Prescribed Authority to dismiss or remove from service any
person under his command other than an officer or a subordinate
officer read with rule 177 of the Rules is an independent power which
can be validly exercised by the Commandant as a Prescribed Officer,
and it has nothing to do with the power of the Security Force Court ror D
dealing with the offences, snch as absence from duty without leave or
overstaying leave gr;mted to a member of the Force without sufficient
canse and to award punishment for the same. [281B-D]

5. Rule 6 of the Rules has specifically provided that in regard to

- matters not specifically provided in the Rules ii shall be lawful for the
Competent Authority to do such thing or take such action as may be just
and proper in the circumstances of the case. l281F]

In the instant case, though any procedure has not been prescribed
E

by the Rules, still the Commandant duly gave an opportunity to the
appellant to submit his explanation against the proposed punishment F
for dismissal from service for bis absence from duty without any leave
and overstaying leave without sufficient cause. The appellant did not
avail of this opportunity and he did not tile any show cause to the said
notice. Thus the principle of natural justice was not violated as has been
rightly held by the High Court. [281 G-H] ·
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2106
of 1989.

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.7.1987 of the Gauhati
High Court in Second Appeal No. 22of1981.
H
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11989] 2 S.C.R.

A N.D. Garg and Rajeev Garg for the Appellant.

Anil Dev Singh, Ms. Indu Goswami, P. Parmeshwaran and Ms.
Sushma Suri for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
~
RAY, J. Special leave granted. Heard arguments of both the
parties. >
This appeal on special leave is against the judgment and decree 6

passed by the Ganhati High Court on July 15, 1987 in Second Appeal
c No. 22 of 1981 reversing the jndgment and decree dated July 24, 1981
made by the Additional District Judge, West Tripura District, ~.
Agartala setting aside the judgment and decree passed hy the Munsiff,
Sadar, Tripura in Title Suit No. 33 of 1973 dismissing the Suit without
costs.
D
The plaintiff-appellant was enrolled as a Constable No. 66922189
under 92 Bn, BSF in Tripura and he was serving as such since 1966. He
alleged to have been confirmed in the said post while so posted to
B.O.P. at Ajgar Rahamanpur being a member of the 6th platoon
under B. Company Commander Radhanagar. In 1971, he was granted
leave from 25.10. 71 to 30.10.1971 on account of the death of his
+-
E father. As the Sradh ceremony could not be performed within the
aforesaid time and he was suffering from serious illness he made an
application requesting for extension of leave supported by a medical
certificate. On December 12, 1971 the appellant received a communi-
cation from the .Commandant stating that as he was absent without
-
F
leave from 31.10.1971 so he (the Commandant) was of the opinion that :r·
because of this absen~e without leave for a long period his further
retention in service was undesirable. He proposed to dismiss him from
service. The appellant was asked to submit his explanation against the
imposition of this penalty before December 25, 1971. The appellant "'
sent a telegram on December 21, 1971 but without any redress. On
January 5, 1972 he received an order from the Commandant, 92 Bn.
G BSF informing him that he had been dismissed from service. On ~
January 10, 1972 the appellant again prayed for permitting him to join
his service but he was not allowed to do so. The appellant preferred an
appeal to the Inspector General, BSF (Police), Government of Tri-
pura on February 1, 1972 which was received by him on February 3,
1972. No relief was granted to him.
H
G. CHAKRABORTY v. STAIB OF TRIPURA [RAY, J.] 275

The appellant as plaintiff after serving a notice under Section 80
A
of the Code of Civil Procedure and as no redress was given to him,
filed Title Suit No. 33 of 1973 in the Court of Munsiff, Sadar, Tripura
for a declaration that the order of dismissal from service was illegal
and he was still in service.

The defendants-respondents contested the Suit and pleaded that B
the plaintiff was absent from duty from 31.10.1971 without any leave
at a critical time when India was at war with Pakistan. The Com-
mandant, 92 Battalion, BSF by notice dated December 15, 1971 in-
- timated him that his retention in service was undesirable because of his
absence for a long period and as such it was proposed to dismiss him
from service. He was given opportunity to urge anything in his defence
but he did not avail of it by sending any reply. He was therefore, c
dismissed from service by the Commandant by order dated January 5,
1972 in accordance with the provisions of Border Security Force Act,
1968 and the Rules framed thereunder.

The Munsiff held that the plaintiff was given reasonable D
opportunity before the Commandant dismissed him from service. The
suit was, therefore, dismissed.

Against the said judgment and decree the plaintiff filed an
appeal which was registered as Title Appeal No. 7 of 1979 in the Court
of Additional District Judge, West Tripura District Agartala. The said E
. t
appeal was allowed and the smt was decreed. It was held that the
impugned order of dismissal from service was illegal and bad as tbe
same was not made by Security Force Court and no such Court was
constituted. The order passed by Commandant under Section 11(2) of
the Act read with Rule 177 of the Rules of 1969 cannot be upheld. It
was also held that the impugned order was bad as it was contrary to the F
constitutional mandate embodied in Article 311 of the Constitution of
India as no opportunity of hearing was given and the procedural safe·
guards as contained in Chapters VII to XI of the Rules were not
followed for arriving at a decision of guilt against the appellant by
Security Force Court.
G
Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the respon-
dents preferred a second appeal being S.A. No. 22 of 1981 in .the
Gauhati High Court. On July 15, 1987 the High Court decreed the said
appeal on reversing the judgment and decree of the lower appellate
court and dismissing the suit holding inter alia that the order of dismis-
sal from service-in-question had been made in accordance with the H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R.
-..\
powers conferred on the Commandant, B.S.F. under the provisions of
A
Section 11(2) and (4) of Border Security Force Act, 1968 read with
Rule 177 of Border Security Force Rules, 1969. It was also held that
this was an independent power conferred upon the Commandant apart
from the power conferred upon the Security Force Court under Sec-
tion 48 of the said Act for imposition of punishment of dismissal from
B service in respect of the offences specified in Section 19 of the said ~
Act.
>.
The plaintiff-appellant filed the instant appeal on special leave
,
against the said judgment and decree passed by the High Court in the
said Second Appeal.
c The only challenge to the judgment in appeal is that the order of :>!.
dismissal dated January 5, 1972 passed by the Commandant is illegal
and unwarranted in as much as there was no order made by the Secu-·
rity Force Court for passing the impugned order of dismissal for an
offence made under Section 19 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968
D following the procedure contained in chapters VII to XI of the Rules
framed under Section 141 of the Border Security Force Act. The
Border Security Force Act has been enacted with a view to provide for
the constitution and regulation of an armed force of the Union for
ensuring the security of the borders of India and for matters connected ~
therewith, by the Parliament and the same has been enforced by
E Notification Nq. S.O. 732 dated the 20th February, 1969.

Section 4 of Border Security Force Act to be referred to here-
inafter in short as BSF Act provides that:

"There shall be an armed force of the Union called the
F Border Security Force for ensuring the security of the
borders of India."
-~

Sub-Section (2) further provides that:

"Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Force shall be
G constituted in such manner as may be prescribed and the
conditions of service of the members of the Force shall be
such as may be prescnbed."

Section 10 says that:

H "Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules, the
G. CHAKRABORTY v. STATE OF TRIPURA lRAY, J.] 277

Central Government may dismiss or remove from the
A
service any person subject to this Act."

Section 11 which is very relevant for the decision of the instant
case is quoted hereinbelow:

"(1) The Director-General or any Inspector-General may B
dismiss or remove from the service or reduce to a lower
grade or rank or the ranks any person subject to this Act
other than an officer.
(2) An officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector-
General or any prescribed officer may dismiss or remove
from the service any person under his command other than C
an officer or a subordinate officer of such rank or ranks as
may be prescribed.
(3) Any such officer as is mentioned in sub-section (2) may
reduce co a lower grade or rank or the ranks any person
under his command except an officer or subordinate D
officer.
(4) The exercise of any power under this section shall be
subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules."

Chapter III specifies the offences under the BSF Act. Section 19
of the said Chapter states that: E

"Any person subject to this Act who commits any of the
following offences, that is to say:

(a) absent~ himself without leave; or
F
(b) without sufficient cause overstays leave granted to
him; or
(c) being on leave of absence and having received informa-
tion from the appropriate authority that any battalion or
part thereof or any other unit of the Force, to which he G
belongs, has been ordered on active duty, fails, without
sufficient cause, to rejoin without delay; or

............. etc. etc. H

l
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R.

A shall, on conviction by a Security Force Court, be liable to
suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned."
G. CHAKRABORTY v. STAIB OF TRIPURA [RAY, J.J 279

~. command other than an officer or a subordinate officer."
A
On a consideration of the provisions of the BSF Act, it is evident
that the services of the enrolled persons under the BSF Act are gover-
ned by the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules framed there-
under. It is also evident that Chapter III which starts with Section 14 of
the said act specifies the various offences under the Act. Section 19 of B
-l the said Chapter refers amongst others the following offences:
'i. "(a) absents himself without leave; or

' (b) without sufficient cause overstays leave granted to
him; or
'
c
~ (c) being on leave of absence and having received informa-
tion from the appropriate authority that any battalion or
part thereof or any other unit of the Force, to which he
belongs, has been ordered on active duty, fails, without
sufficient cause to rejoin without delay; or D

.......... etc. etc."

.~· All these offences are to be tried by the Security Force Court
which will punish the offenders with sentences as provided in the Act.
E
Section 48 specifically provides that the Security Force Court
..... may inflict punishment in respect of the following offences committep
by the person subject to the said Act according to the following scale:

~ "(a) death;
(b) imprisonment which may be for the term of life or any
F
other lesser term but excluding imprisonment for a term
not exceeding three months in Force custody;
(c) dismissal from service
..............
).(: . , ............. etc. etc."
G

Section 50 further provides that:

"A sentence of a Security Force Court may award in addi-
tion to, or withouf any one other punishment, the punish- H
)'
/
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11989] 2 S.C.R.
__.._
A ment specified .in clause (c) of sub-section ( 1) of Section 48
.
. . . . . . . ."

A procedure has been provided by BSF Rules for trial of the
offences by the Security Force Court and for awarding of punishment.
The order of dismissal of the appellant from service was assailed
B mainly on the ground that it was not made in accordance with the
~
provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder in as much as
there was no trial by the Security Force Court nor any order of punish- ~·
ment was awarded by the Security Force Court as required under the
provisions of the Act. Section 11(2) of the Act empowers the Com- ~

mandant who is the Prescribed Officer to dismiss or remove from
service any person under his command other than an officer or a
c subordinate officer of such rank or ranks subject to the provisions of
the said Act and the Rules. It has been urged that unless and until the ~
offence of absence without leave or overstaying leave granted to a
member of the Service, without sufficient cause is tried by the Security
Force Court and punishment is awarded therefor as provided in Sec-
D tion 48 and Section 50 of the said Act, the impugned order of dismissal
from service by the Commandant for absence without leave and for
overstaying leave without sufficient cause, is illegal and as such it is
liable to be quashed and set aside. It has been further submitted that
the power of the Commandant as a Prescribed Officer under Section
11(2) being subject to sub-section 4 of Section 11 i.e. the exercise of f-
E this power is subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, that is
the Commandant is not competent to dismiss the appellant from
service unless the Security Force Court has tried the appellant and
awarded punishment in accordance with the procedure prescribed by
the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The power of the Com-
mandant to order a member of the Force other than an Officer or
-
)r-

,
F Subordinate Officer from service as provided under the Act read with
Rule 177 of the Rules is subject to the limitation that unless the Secu-
rity Force Court passes an order of conviction and sentence on the
delinquent member of the Force following the procedure prescribed,
such an order cannot be made and enforced. It has, therefore, been
submitted that the impugned judgment rendered by the· High Court
G which held that the power under Section 11(2) read with Rule 177 of
)'(
the said Rules was an independent power conferred on the Prescribed
Authority i.e. the Commandant, is not in accordance with law and as
such the same requires to be set aside.

It has, however, been urged on behalf of the State that the power
H conferred on the Commandant as Prescribed Authority under Section
r
~
G. CHAKRABORTY v. STATE OF TRJPURA (RAY, J.] 281

11(2) to dismiss any person under his command from the service read A
with Rule 177 of the said Rules is an independent power as held by the
High Court and as such the impugned order of dismissal from service
of the appellant passed by the respondent is not at all arbitrary or
illegal.
B
We have scrutinised the relevant provisions of the BSF Act as
well as the BSF Rules framed thereunder and we have no hesitation to
hold that the power under Section 11(2) of the Act empowering the

- Prescribed Authority i.e. the Commandant to dismiss or remove from
service any person under his command other than an officer or a subordi··
nate officer read with Rule 177 of the said Rules is an independent power
which can be validity· exercised by the Commandant as a Prescribed C
Officer and it has nothing to do with the power of the Security Force
Court for dealing with the offences such as absence from duty without
leave or overstaying leave gr.anted to a member of the Force without
sufficient cause and to award punishment for the same. The provision
of sub-section 4 of Section 11 which enjoins that the exercise of the D
power under the aforesaid Section shall be subject to the provisions of
the Act and the Rules does not signify that the power to dismiss a
person from service by the Commandant for his absence from duty
without leave without anv reasonable cause or for overstaying leave
without sufficient cause and holding him as undesirable cannot be
exercised unless the Security Force Court has awarded punishment to E
that person in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The
Prescribed Authority i.e. the Commandant is competent to exercise
the power under Section 11(2) of the said Act and to dismiss any
person under his command as prescribed under Rule 177 of the BSF
Rules. It is also to be noticed in this connection that Rule 6 of the said
Rules has specifically provided that in regard to matiers not specifi- F
cally provided in the Rules it shall be lawful for the Competent Au-
thority to do such thing or take such action as may be just and proper
r in the circumstances of the case. In this case though any procedure has
not been prescribed by the Rules still the Commandant duly gave an
opportunity to the appellant to submit his explanation against the
proposed punishment for dismissal from service for his absence from G
duty without any leave and overstaying leave without sufficient cause.
The appellant did not avail of this opportunity and he did not file any
show cause to the said notice. Thus the principle of natural justice was
not violated as has been rightly held by the High Court. No other point
has been urged before us by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant. H
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R.

A In the premises aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this appeal
which is accordingly dismissed without costs. The judgment and
decree of the High Court in S.A. No. 22 of 1981is confirmed.

N.V.K. Appeal dismissed.

-