HC upholds BSF officer's dismissal over illicit relationship with colleague's wife

New Delhi | The Delhi High Court on Thursday upheld the dismissal of a BSF officer for having an "illicit relationship" with the wife of a colleague, saying his conduct was dishonourable and unfit for an official tasked with the onerous responsibility of protecting the country.

The court said it cannot turn a blind eye to such a violation of institutional and moral principles since such dishonest behaviour undermines public confidence in the integrity of the armed forces.

A bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla said the act of a married individual presenting gifts to another married individual of the opposite sex, who is not their spouse, without legitimate context, may reasonably be presumed as unusual and calls for an appropriate clarification.

The burden in all these kinds of situations where there is such an exchange of gifts lies heavily on the person who enters such a defence, it said.

The court dismissed the former Border Security Force (BSF) officer's plea seeking the quashing of the September 2022 findings and order of sentence passed against him by the General Security Force Court (GSFC).

The petitioner had also sought the quashing of the order of his dismissal from service and urged the court to reinstate him in the force.

The court noted that the petitioner, who was a sub-inspector in the BSF before his dismissal from service, had established an illicit relationship with his colleague's wife by offering presents and making frequent visits to her, which was morally distressing and went against the very ethos of the uniform he wore.

"We cannot be oblivious to the petitioner's conduct, which is not only dishonourable but also unfit for an official tasked with the onerous responsibility of protecting the country.

"This court cannot turn a blind eye to such a violation of institutional and moral principles since such dishonest behaviour undermines public confidence in the integrity of the armed forces and is repugnant to the conscience of every citizen," it said.

The bench said it cannot restrain itself from commenting on the petitioner's conduct and referred to another judgment in which it was stated that an officer belonging to a disciplined force bears the duty to maintain the highest standards of honesty and morality, and abstain from any conduct that is inconsistent and unbecoming of the rank held by him.

The court said no reasonable justification has been given as to why gifts were given by the man to the woman.

The act gains predominance in the background that there appears no formal, familial or professional relationship between the petitioner and Mrs X that would ordinarily justify such gestures, it said.

The court noted that the GSFC had found that the items were given by the man in a "clandestine" manner and concluded that he had presented the gifts in exchange for sexual favours.

"... because had the petitioner given the items in exchange for money, he could have disclosed it to the husband of Mrs X and got the requisite amount in return, which the petitioner did not do," it said, adding that it was not convinced that the findings of the GSFC merit interference.

It was alleged that in 2019, communication commenced between the petitioner and his colleague's wife, who resided in the same building. It was further alleged that the petitioner, on several occasions, gifted a mobile phone, a gold locket and a dress to the woman and used to visit her at her residence in the absence of her husband.

In 2020, an explanation was sought from him for alleged violation of professional ethics and moral conduct regarding his relationship with another woman despite having a family of his own.

The petitioner denied the allegations and termed them baseless rumours.

The woman's husband wrote a complaint to the authorities, after which a court of inquiry was initiated against the petitioner.

The woman, in her statement, had claimed that initially she avoided communication with the petitioner, however, she was coaxed into establishing a relationship with him against her wishes.

The petitioner's claim was that the authorities' case relied on the woman's statement, which was made under coercion and was inadmissible. He had said that he could not be convicted in the absence of any corroborating evidence.