'Undesirable For National Security': Calcutta HC Upholds Dismissal Of BSF Personnel Accused Of Taking Bribes To Declare Candidates 'Fit'

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the dismissal of BSF personnel Md. Farhad Zaman, accused of accepting bribes to secure “fit” medical certificates for job aspirants appearing in the 2018 Constable (GD) recruitment in CAPFs, NIA, SSF and Assam Rifles.

Justice Amrita Sinha dismissed the writ petition filed by the dismissed BSF constable and observed that overwhelming material existed to prima facie indicate his involvement in a conspiracy involving doctors and civilians.

The Court made strong observations on the importance of discipline within uniformed forces. It held that no leniency could be shown to a member of the Force accused of such grave illegalities.

“Any sympathy or leniency to such a member is bound to send out a wrong signal… Illegality of such nature must be dealt with an iron hand,” the Court said.

Emphasising that the BSF, as an Armed Force of the Union, requires the highest standards of honesty and integrity, the Court held that retention of an officer facing such allegations is “undesirable” and contrary to national security interests.

The allegations against the petitioner included dealing with a Senior Medical Officer, Dr. Lokeshwar Khajuria, to arrange “fit” certificates for a consideration of ₹2 lakh per candidate. The affidavit disclosed a money trail, including ₹80,000 deposited into the petitioner's non-salary account, which was then transferred further as part of the alleged arrangement.

The authorities also alleged that WhatsApp communications relating to the illegal deals were deleted and that the petitioner had threatened candidates and their families to ensure silence.

The CBI registered a case against the petitioner, doctors and private individuals under IPC Sections 120B/420 and Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Court accepted the BSF's stand that trial under the BSF Act was inexpedient and impracticable, since the case involved several civilians whose evidence could not be recorded before a Security Force Court. It held that investigation and trial could not be conducted in a piecemeal manner.

The petitioner argued that subjective satisfaction had not been recorded and that he was denied materials along with the show cause notice. The Court rejected this contention, holding that the allegations and underlying evidence were clearly disclosed and that the petitioner had filed a reply which was duly considered.

The Court also held that the precedents cited by the petitioner—Baldeb Raj Chadha, Sat Pal Singh, and Sees Ram—were distinguishable, as those cases involved absence of notice or improper procedure. In the present case, the show cause and dismissal order were consistent, and adequate opportunity was given.

Referring to Baldeb Raj Chadha, the Court reiterated that judicial review in service matters is limited to ensuring that there is some relevant material on record and that a rational mind could be satisfied with the decision.

“There are materials galore suggesting involvement of the petitioner… No prudent man would agree to retain a uniformed officer in service charged with accepting gratification,” the High Court observed.

The Court held that retaining the petitioner in service while facing such allegations would demoralize the Force and undermine the integrity of the recruitment process.

Concluding that the disciplinary authority acted within its jurisdiction and followed due process, the Court found no reason to interfere with the dismissal order.

Case: Md. Farhad Zaman Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Case No: WPA 840 of 2024

Click here to read order