The Tripura High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by former BSF Head Constable Som Nath, who challenged his dismissal from service following a Summary Security Force Court proceeding over an incident involving the firing of 20 rounds from his service rifle.
Justice Biswajit Palit held that the petitioner failed to establish any procedural irregularity, violation of natural justice, or other ground warranting interference with the disciplinary proceedings.
Background of the Case
Som Nath had served in the Border Security Force for more than 34 years. On December 6, 2023, while performing operational post duty at OP Point No. 1 in the area of BOP Nischintpur, he was issued an INSAS rifle with one magazine containing 20 rounds.
According to the record placed before the High Court, 20 rounds were subsequently fired into the air. The BSF authorities also alleged that he had aimed the rifle towards officers who arrived at the post. He was thereafter taken for medical examination, where the initial diagnosis recorded by the concerned medical officer was alcohol intoxication; he was later discharged from hospital with hypertension as the final diagnosis.
The BSF proceeded against him on three charges under Sections 20(a), 40 and 22(e) of the BSF Act, 1968 relating respectively to assaulting a superior officer, an act prejudicial to good order and discipline, and neglecting a local order.
Defence and Trial Proceedings
Som Nath argued before the High Court that he was not given adequate assistance during the proceedings and that the evidence regarding intoxication was insufficient.
The BSF, however, produced records showing that he had been given an opportunity to nominate a “Friend of Accused” and had also been informed that he could engage civil counsel at his own expense. During the Summary Security Force Court trial, a Friend of Accused was appointed. The Court examined 14 prosecution witnesses, and the petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine them. He also declined the opportunity to call defence witnesses but made an oral statement.
Although he initially pleaded guilty to all three charges, the Security Force Court did not accept that plea and instead recorded his plea as “Not Guilty” to ensure a fair opportunity to defend himself. It subsequently found him guilty after considering the evidence and ordered his dismissal, also taking into account his previous service record.
Court’s Observation
The High Court noted that its power under Article 226 of the Constitution in disciplinary matters is limited. It cannot simply re-examine evidence as though hearing an appeal.
The Court observed:
“This Court cannot reappreciate the evidence recorded during the departmental inquiry or interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry Authority.”
The Court further found that the petitioner had not challenged the applicability of Sections 20 and 22 before the BSF Court during the proceedings. It also found no material demonstrating that the principles of natural justice had been violated or that the petitioner was denied a proper opportunity to defend himself.
Decision
Justice Palit held that no ground had been made out for interference with the disciplinary authority’s findings.
The High Court consequently dismissed the writ petition, holding that Som Nath was not entitled to any relief.
Any pending applications were also disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Sri. Som Nath v. The Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) No. 579 of 2025
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Biswajit Palit
Decision Date: 11 August 2026
