BSF Court Of Inquiry Can Proceed Alongside Criminal Trial : J&K high Court

A Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that preliminary Court of Inquiry under BSF Rules is merely a fact-finding exercise and it can proceed during pendency of a criminal trial. It does not amount to parallel departmental proceedings or cause prejudice to the accused employee. Background Facts The employee was an Assistant Commandant, serving in the Border Security Force (BSF). He was posted at the STC Airport in Humhama, Srinagar. In 2022, a complaint was lodged against him for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC (Rape). Hence, the BSF authorities placed the employee under suspension, citing the gravity of the offence. Later, the authorities ordered a Court of Inquiry under the BSF Rules. Simultaneously the criminal proceedings were initiated against the appellant to investigate the allegations. Aggrieved, the employee approached the High Court through a writ petition, challenging the initiation of the Court of Inquiry under the BSF Rules. He contended that allowing departmental proceedings to run parallel to an ongoing criminal trial for the same charges would prejudice his defence in the criminal case. The Single Judge dismissed his petition. It was held that there was no bar against both proceedings continuing simultaneously. Dissatisfied, the employee filed the intra-court appeal against the Single Judge's order. It was argued by the employee that permitting the BSF's departmental Court of Inquiry to proceed alongside an ongoing criminal trial for the same allegations would place him in a prejudicial position. It was further contended that disciplinary inquiry had no expertise to decide the allegations involving complex questions of law and fact. It was contended by the employee that in case the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings were permitted to proceed simultaneously, it would have seriously impacted and prejudiced the defence which the employee would have taken in the criminal trial. It was further argued that there was unreasonable delay in completing the departmental proceedings, therefore, the order of suspension deserves to be revoked. On the other hand, it was argued by the respondents that the initiation of a Court of Inquiry under Rule 173 of the BSF Rules, was not the initiation of formal departmental proceedings. The respondents argued that a Court of Inquiry is just a preliminary, fact-finding exercise. Findings of the Court It was observed by the Division Bench that the BSF authorities had not ordered a departmental disciplinary proceeding, but a preliminary Court of Inquiry under the BSF Rules. This inquiry is a purely fact-finding mechanism designed to assist the authorities in deciding whether to initiate formal action. Further the inquiry it does not constitute the commencement of parallel proceedings. The Division Bench affirmed the view of the Single Judge that there is no statutory bar against departmental proceedings and a criminal trial for the same charges proceeding simultaneously. It was held that no disciplinary proceedings had yet been initiated against the employee therefore, his challenge was premature. It was held by the court that the employee should participate and appears before the Court of Inquiry. He should persuade that in view of the pendency of a criminal trial, a departmental proceeding on the same charges should not be initiated. It was further held that during the Court of Inquiry, the employee could not be compelled to make any self-incriminating statement. He also has option to even remain silent during these proceeding. It was further observed that the employee was suspended due to the pending criminal trial on charges of Rape. He was not suspended due to pending departmental inquiry as it had not been ordered yet. Hence, the contention of the employee that his suspension order should be revoked, was rejected by the Division Bench. With the aforesaid observations, the order of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the appeal filed by the employee was dismissed by the Division Bench. Case Name : Akhand Prakash Shahi vs. Union of India & Ors. Case No. : LPA No. 275/2025 c/w LPA No. 288/2025 Counsel for the Appellant : Danish Majid Dar, Adv. with Mehjabeena, Adv. Counsel for the Respondents : Nazir Ahmad, Adv., Sehar Mufti, Adv. vice Viqas Malik, Adv.Click Here To Read/Download Order

BSF Court Of Inquiry Can Proceed Alongside Criminal Trial : J&K high Court

Namdev Singh

Tags