Patna High Court
Chandan Kumar SumanversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The termination of the petitioner’s service under Section 23 of the BSF Act, 1968 was lawful and the writ petition was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Constable Chandan Kumar Suman of the Border Security Force, was dismissed from service under Section 23 of the BSF Act, 1968 for alleged misconduct. He filed a writ petition seeking a certiorari to set aside the dismissal order dated 28-06-2021, his reinstatement, and a mandamus directing the Inspector General to consider his pending representation. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment (Avtar Singh v. Union of India, 2017) and claimed that his representation filed on 15-09-2021 had not been entertained. The respondents contended that the dismissal followed a proper show‑cause procedure, that the petitioner had concealed a pending criminal case, and that the appellate authority had affirmed the termination. The High Court held that the disciplinary proceedings complied with the BSF Act, that no legal provision permits entertaining a representation after the appellate authority’s affirmation, and therefore the petition could not be entertained. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the dismissal of a BSF constable under Section 23 of the BSF Act, 1968, after due process, can be set aside by a writ of certiorari.
- Whether a representation filed after the appellate authority has affirmed the termination can be entertained.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and a mandamus directing further consideration of his pending application.
Legislation cited
- Border Security Force Act, 1968 — s. 23
Subjects
- service termination
- BSF Act
- Section 23
- writ of certiorari
- mandamus
- representation after appellate order
- disciplinary proceedings
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9940 of 2022
======================================================
Chandan Kumar Suman s/o Yugal Kishore Paswan, Resident of Village-Tetia,
P.O. Tetia Bambar, P.S. Tetia Bambar, District-Munger, posted previously as
constable Chandan Kumar Suman E coy, 200 Bn BSF, Gokulnagar, Tripura-
799102.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New
Delhi.
2. The Director General Border Security Force, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
3. The Inspector General, Border Security Force, HQ, Tripura Frontier BSF,
Salbagan, Tripura.
4. The Dy. Inspector General, Border Security Force, HQ, Tripura Frontier
BSF, Salbagan.
5. The Commandant, 200 Bn BSF, Gokulnagar, Tripura.
6. The Commandant, 69 Bn BSF, Narayanpur, Malda (West Bengal).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Saroj Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. CGC
Mr.Avinash Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 31-01-2026 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and
Learned Counsel for the State.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-
i. For issuance of order (s), direction (s), writ
(s), particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari for setting
aside the order dated 28-06-2021 passed by Raj Narayan,
Mishra Commandant, 200 Bn BSF, Gokulnagar, Tripura-
799102 whereby, punishment dismissal from service has
been imposed upon him, with immediate effect, for having
Patna High Court CWJC No.9940 of 2022(3) dt.31-01-2026
2/4
committed offence under section 23 of BSF Act, 1968
(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
ii. For issuance of an appropriate order or
direction quashing the order dated 28.06.2021 made by the
commandant Sri Raj Narayan Mishra against the petitioner
of accused number 131007402, Constable, Chandan Kumar
Suman 'E' Coy, 200 Bn BSF, who has been tried by SSFC
and awarded sentence "To be dismissed from the service"
without holding any cogent enquiry to the petitioner.
iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ order or
direction commanding the respondents to reinstate the
petitioner in BSF, as a constable, GD. Duty.
iv. For issuance of a writ of mandamus
directing the respondent No. 3 to consider and dispose of
the application of the petitioner which is pending for
disposal in the office of the inspector General. Frontier
head quarter, Border security force, Salbagan, Tripura.
3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner has filed his representation dated 15.09.2021 which is
annexed vide Annexure-3 of the writ petition, in which he relied
on judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case
of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. passed in 15.11.2017
(annexure-4) and submits that no order has been passed in his
representation. He further submits that the present writ petition
has been filed with limited prayer for entertainment of his
representation vide Annexure-3 with Annexure-4.
4. Learned counsel for the Union of India opposes the
prayer and submits that the petitioner was enrolled as Constable
(GD) on 15.05.2013 and reported to 200 Bn BSF, on permanent
Patna High Court CWJC No.9940 of 2022(3) dt.31-01-2026
3/4
posting dated 28.04.2014. He further submits that a complain
was received against the petitioner about pending criminal case
against him. In this regard, report has been called for through
District Magistrate, Munger in which he had confirmed about
the pendency of the criminal case with information that the
petitioner and other accused tried to compromise the said case,
however, the case is still pending.
5. Counsel further submits that a show-cause was
issued against the petitioner and in his reply to the show-cause,
he admits about the pendency of the criminal case at the time of
his appointment. But he has intimated in the enrollment form
that no criminal case pending against him, which is absolutely
out and out a false statement. Action has been taken against him
for violation of Section 23 of the B.S.F. Act, 1968, following the
due procedure and granting full opportunity of examination and
cross-examination and order of termination was passed, which
was challenged by him before the Appellate Authority by which
the order has also been affirmed.
6. Counsel further submits that there is no provision in
law that after passing order by the Appellate Authority, a
representation should be entertained annexing the order passed
by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, and therefore, the present
Patna High Court CWJC No.9940 of 2022(3) dt.31-01-2026
4/4
writ petition fit to be dismissed.
7. Upon going through the documents and hearing the
parties, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner’s service
has been treated by the respondent authorities in accordance
with the BSC Act, 1968 and whatever opportunity available
under law has been provided to him. The prayer of the petitioner
for entertainment of his representation after affirmation of
termination from Appellate Authority is not permissible in law.
Therefore, this Court has not option, but to dismiss the present
writ petition.
8. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the
present writ application stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-
U
Checking your session…