UNION OF INDIA versus B.N. JHA

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 721 · Decided: 07-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
< 
A 
UNION OF. INDIA 
v. 
B.N. JHA 
MARCH 7, 2003 
B 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Border Security Force Act/Border Security Force Rules; Sections 45 & C 
46: Principle of Natural Justice-Protection from personal bias-Held: An 
Authority who was biased could not direct his subordinate officer to initiate 
disciplinary proceedings against an errant employee-Neither the record was 
shown to the errant employee nor disciplinary authority applied his independent 
mind in the preparation of record of evidence to come to the conclusion of 
guilt-Thus right to protection from bias of the errant employee had been D 
breached-Hence, High Court rightly set aside order of dismissal of the 
employee. 
Legal Maxims: 
Maxims "specialia generaliabus non derogant", "Audi alteram partem" E 
and "Nemo Judex in causa sua" in connection with principle of natural 
justice-Discussed-Administrative Law. 
Respondent was working as Deputy Commandant in the Training 
Centre and School of the Border Security Force. He allegedly received 
bribe from two persons for procuring their appointment in the B.S.F. F 
The Unit Commandant had asked one of his subordinate Commandant 
to inquire into the matter. In the meanwhile, Unit Commandant also 
examined and recorded confession of the delinquent officer and other 
two persons and transferred the delinquent officer to another training 
Centre under the same Office and asked the Commandant of the Centre 
to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent officer and G 
later the General Security Force Court found him guilty and he had been 
dismissed from service. The Writ Petition filed by the aggrieved officer 
was allowed by the Single Judge and on appeal affirmed by the Division 
Bench of the High Court on the ground of denial of the valuable right of 
protection from bias of the delinquent. Hence the present appeal. 
721 
H 
722 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
It was contended for the appellant that the disciplinary proceedings 
against the delinquent officer were initiated strictly as per B.S.F. Rules; 
that delinquent had been provided with opportunity to cross examine the 
witness and the authority; and that the High Court does not possess 
power of superintendence over the B.S.F. Court, so it could not re-
B appreciate evidence by exercising its jurisdiction. under Article 226. 
c 
On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that since Unit 
Commandant was a prosecution witness in the trial, the posting of 
delinquent officer during the period ought to have been done by the 
Headquarters; and that the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the 
Commandant at the instance of Unit Commandant/PW became invalid 
due to lack of jurisdiction. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The Scheme of the Border Security Force Act and the 
Rules leading to holding of a trial by the General Security Force Court 
D leaves no manner of doubt that the basic principles of natural justice 
have been codified therein. The provisions of the Act and the Rules in no 
uncertain terms envisage protection from bias against an officer. The Act 
even sought to fill up the gaps occurring in other Acts so as to protect a 
person from personal bias or a real likelihood of bias. [733-DJ 
· E 
1.2. The Basic Training Centre, Specialised Training Centre and 
School or Administrative Wing are the three wings of the BSF, Training 
Centre and School; each wing being a component thereof the same cannot 
be treated to be a separate unit for the purpose of Rule 45B of the B.S.F. 
Rules. (734-AJ 
!· 
F 
1.3. Keeping in view the personal interest shown by the Unit 
Commandant he should not have exercised his purported statutory power 
under Rule 46 by attaching the respondent to a wing of the own unit. 
Exercise of a statutory power may, although not be invalidated on the 
ground of inherent lack of jurisdiction on his post but the order of 
G attachment passed by him, having regard to the facts and circumstances 
of the case, must be held to be illegal. [734-EJ 
H 
1.4. A power under Rule 16(7) of the Rules can be exercised in a 
general manner and not in a particular manner far less in a particular 
matter where Rule 46 will be applicable. The principles of specialia 
generaliabus non derogant shall apply in such a case and such power 
). 
U.0.1. v. B.N. JHA 
723 
cannot be delegated by the concerned Authority to another. [734-F) 
A 
1.5. The Unit Commandant, in exercise of po

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.