Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. In the case under reference, Ftr HQ, SSB, Siliguri ordered an inquiry in the incident. The Court of Inquiry/Addl COI was completed under SSB Act & Rule and the officer had been found blameworthy in the COI. The Officer while being inducted in SSB had opted to be governed by the provisions of BSF Act & Rules. Therefore, the case has been forwarded to BSF by HQ SSB, New Delhi for initiation of disciplinary action against the officer.
3. The aforesaid case has been examined in detail at this HQ in consultation with Law Branch, FHQ. It has been found that since, the COI/Addl CsOI ordered by IG, SSB, Siliguri Frontier being a fact finding body under the SSB Act & Rules, investigated into commission & omission on the part of the officer and other SSB personnel, therefore, it may not operate as a bar in initiating action against the officer on the basis of the COI /Addl COI by the BSF authorities. However, while, considering to claim the criminal case against the said officer from criminal court it may be borne in the mind that the officer has committed the alleged offence along with one HC(GD) of SSB whose identity is known but he cannot be dealt with under the BSF Act & Rules. Thus, it would not be advisable to claim the case from criminal court. However, these aspects may be considered by concerned competent authority while taking a decision to claim the case from criminal court.

29. Dr. Hooda submits that all authorities had recognized the fact that the petitioner had acted only as per the instructions of the IG, SSB, which the petitioner was bound to follow in view of Section 23(1)15 of the Sashastra Seema Bal Act 200716.

14 The note-sheet does not contain any date.

15 23. Disobedience to superior officer. -

(1) Any person subject to this Act who disobeys in such manner as to show a wilful defiance of authority any lawful command given personally by his superior officer in the execution of his office whether the same is given orally, or in writing or by signal or otherwise, shall, on conviction by a Force Court, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned. 16 "the SSB Act" hereinafter

41. We are in agreement with Mr. Mohan that, once the petitioner has conceded that the operations conducted by him, including the operation undertaken on 22 February 2018, were beyond the scope of his duties and outside his jurisdiction as the in-charge of a reserve Battalion, there can be no question of the Court interdicting the enquiry. The submission of Dr. Hooda that, if the petitioner were to be subjected to an ROE in such circumstances, it would be demoralizing, has obviously to be rejected. No official can claim any right to act outside the boundaries of his jurisdiction; least of all a member of a disciplined force such as the petitioner. In fact, Section 112 of the SSB Act, cited by Dr. Hooda himself, fortifies this position, as it enjoins on every officer of the SSB to obey lawful commands of his superior. A command to act beyond one's jurisdiction cannot, prima facie, be regarded as lawful, of which Section 112 would obligate compliance. The mere heaping of encomiums and plaudits on such a vigilante officer may not be excuse enough to condone his acting in excess of jurisdiction.