'National Security Paramount': Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of BSF Officer For Cattle Smuggling Across Indo-Bangladesh Border

The Supreme Court recently refused to interfere with the dismissal of a Border Security Force Sub-Inspector convicted by a General Security Force Court for facilitating illegal cattle smuggling at the Indo-Bangladesh border.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed that when national security is paramount, infractions by officers manning the borders cannot be viewed lightly.

“When the national security is paramount, any infraction thereof that too by the officers or the concerned who would be manning the Borders cannot be viewed lightly and it is for this reason, the punishment permissible under Section 48(1)(c) of the BSF Act, 1968 has been imposed on the appellant”, the Court stated.

Bhagirath Choudhary, who had served in the BSF for 36 years, was posted as Post-Commander at Gate No. 16 on the Indo-Bangladesh Border when he was accused of facilitating illegal cattle smuggling. The allegation was based on an alleged confessional statement and physical signs at the site. No cattle or illegal gratification was recovered and there were no independent or eye-witnesses.

After a preliminary hearing and recording of evidence, he was tried by a General Security Force Court and convicted under Section 40 of the BSF Act, 1968 for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force. The GSFC imposed a punishment of six months' rigorous imprisonment and dismissed him from service.

Challenging this before the Delhi High Court, he argued that the confession was obtained under coercion, the evidence was unreliable, and dismissal was not permissible for a conviction under Section 40. He contended that the punishment was disproportionate in view of his long service. The High Court rejected his appeal.

In the Supreme Court, he reiterated these grounds and further submitted that denial of pension at the end of his career was highly disproportionate.

Opposing the appeal, the BSF contended that there was no infirmity in the High Court order as the principles of natural justice had been followed and the appellant had been given full opportunity to participate in the GSFC proceedings.

The Supreme Court noted that before the High Court, the challenge had ultimately been confined to the legality of the composite punishment imposed by order dated January 22, 2008. Referring to Sections 48 and 50 of the BSF Act, 1968, it upheld the High Court's view that a Security Force Court could impose one or more punishments specified under the Act, including dismissal.

“This has been dealt with by the High Court in detail by referring to the relevant provisions of the BSF Act, 1968 and rightly so has arrived at a conclusion that by virtue of Section 50 of the BSF Act, 1968, a sentence of a Security Force Court in addition to, the punishment contemplated under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 48 being permissible namely any one or more of the punishments specified under the law can be imposed as found that therein, and as such there was no infirmity in the said order. The reasoning adopted by the High Court is in consonance with the provisions of the BSF Act, 1968 and as such we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order”, the Court held.

On the pension claim, the Court noted that the appellant had earlier been punished on four occasions between 1980 and 1995. The first resulted in ten days' imprisonment, the second and third in severe reprimand, and the fourth was the present case involving permitting cattle smuggling at the border.

Considering that he had rendered 36 years of service, the Court permitted him to submit a representation for pension. However, it clarified that this was not a direction to grant pension, and the competent authority would decide the issue in its discretion, including restricting pension to a particular quantum or period.

Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 3877/2011

Case Title – Bhagirath Choudhary v. Border Security Force

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 165