TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>SC Overturns GSFC Judgment Under BSF and NDPS Acts; Orders Full Retiral Benefits Due to Lack of Evidence.</h1> <h3>B.S. Hari Commandant Versus Union of India & Ors.</h3> B.S. Hari Commandant Versus Union of India & Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of the trial and conviction of the appellant under the Border Security Force Act and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.2. Proportionality of the punishment awarded to the appellant.3. Withholding of pension and other retiral benefits of the appellant.Summary:1. Legality of the Trial and Conviction:The appellant was tried and convicted by the General Security Force Court (GSFC) under Sections 40 and 46 of the Border Security Force Act (BSF Act) and Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The appellant contended that the trial was a nullity as the BSF Act does not envisage the GSFC trying offences under the NDPS Act and that the requisite sanction from the Central Government was not obtained as required under Section 59(3) of the NDPS Act. Additionally, the appellant argued that the second charge sheet issued was illegal and contravened Rule 102 of the BSF Rules, 1969. The Supreme Court noted procedural deficiencies but chose not to delve into them, leaving those questions of law open for future adjudication.2. Proportionality of the Punishment:The appellant was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, and dismissal from service. The Supreme Court found the punishment to be disproportionate considering the appellant's unblemished service record of over 31 years and the lack of direct evidence against him. The Court emphasized the principle of proportionality, citing various precedents that penalties must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. The Court concluded that even if there was some semblance of truth in the allegations, the punishment meted out was too harsh and not justified.3. Withholding of Pension and Other Retiral Benefits:The appellant argued that withholding his pension, gratuity, and other benefits was illegal as he had already superannuated before the issuance of the charge sheet. The Supreme Court agreed, citing settled law that a person cannot be deprived of pension without the authority of law. The Court referenced decisions like State of Jharkhand v Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Veena Pandey v Union of India, which held that pension is a hard-earned benefit and cannot be withheld arbitrarily.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and the conviction and sentence awarded by the GSFC. The appellant was held entitled to full retiral benefits from the date of his superannuation. The Court directed that all due payments be processed and made within twelve weeks.Additional Directions:The Court emphasized the need for all judgments and orders to be numbered paragraph-wise for coherence and ease of reference. The Secretary-General was directed to circulate this judgment to all High Courts for consideration of adopting a uniform format for judgments and orders, including paragraphing.
TaxTMI 