Dismissed¶35

Chandan Kumar Suman v. The Union of India

Patna HC31 Jan 2026CWJC/9940/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BSF constable dismissal; Section 23 BSF Act, 1968; concealment of pending criminal case at enrolment; false declaration in enrollment form; SSFC trial; Commandant, 200 Bn BSF order dated 28-06-2021; Appellate Authority affirmed termination; representation dated 15.09.2021 after appeal not entertainable; Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court, 15.11.2017) invoked in representation only; Chandan Kumar Suman v. Union of India & Ors.; Patna High Court CWJC No. 9940 of 2022; decided 31-01-2026 by Dr. Anshuman, J.; writ petition dismissed; reinstatement refused.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's service was treated by the respondent authorities in accordance with the Act (quoted in the judgment as 'BSC Act, 1968', elsewhere printed as BSF Act, 1968) and whatever opportunity was available under law was provided to him.

Chandan Kumar Suman Vs The Union of India — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9940 of 2022

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Chandan Kumar Suman s/o Yugal Kishore Paswan, Resident of Village-Tetia, P.O. Tetia Bambar, P.S. Tetia Bambar, District-Munger, posted previously as constable Chandan Kumar Suman E coy, 200 Bn BSF, Gokulnagar, Tripura799102.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.

¶7

The Director General Border Security Force, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

¶8

The Inspector General, Border Security Force, HQ, Tripura Frontier BSF, Salbagan, Tripura.

¶9

The Dy. Inspector General, Border Security Force, HQ, Tripura Frontier BSF, Salbagan.

¶10

The Commandant, 200 Bn BSF, Gokulnagar, Tripura.

¶11

The Commandant, 69 Bn BSF, Narayanpur, Malda (West Bengal).

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Saroj Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. CGC Mr.Avinash Kumar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER

¶14

3 31-01-2026

¶15

Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and

¶16

Learned Counsel for the State.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶18

present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-

¶19

i. For issuance of order (s), direction (s), writ (s), particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 28-06-2021 passed by Raj Narayan, Mishra Commandant, 200 Bn BSF, Gokulnagar, Tripura799102 whereby, punishment dismissal from service has been imposed upon him, with immediate effect, for having

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.9940 of 2022(3) dt.31-01-2026 2/4

¶21

committed offence under section 23 of BSF Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

¶22

ii. For issuance of an appropriate order or direction quashing the order dated 28.06.2021 made by the commandant Sri Raj Narayan Mishra against the petitioner of accused number 131007402, Constable, Chandan Kumar Suman 'E' Coy, 200 Bn BSF, who has been tried by SSFC and awarded sentence "To be dismissed from the service" without holding any cogent enquiry to the petitioner.

¶23

iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in BSF, as a constable, GD. Duty.

¶24

iv. For issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner which is pending for disposal in the office of the inspector General. Frontier head quarter, Border security force, Salbagan, Tripura.

¶25

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

¶26

petitioner has filed his representation dated 15.09.2021 which is annexed vide Annexure-3 of the writ petition, in which he relied on judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. passed in 15.11.2017 (annexure-4) and submits that no order has been passed in his representation. He further submits that the present writ petition has been filed with limited prayer for entertainment of his representation vide Annexure-3 with Annexure-4.

¶27

Learned counsel for the Union of India opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner was enrolled as Constable (GD) on 15.05.2013 and reported to 200 Bn BSF, on permanent

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.9940 of 2022(3) dt.31-01-2026 3/4

¶29

posting dated 28.04.2014. He further submits that a complain was received against the petitioner about pending criminal case against him. In this regard, report has been called for through District Magistrate, Munger in which he had confirmed about the pendency of the criminal case with information that the petitioner and other accused tried to compromise the said case, however, the case is still pending.

¶30

Counsel further submits that a show-cause was issued against the petitioner and in his reply to the show-cause, he admits about the pendency of the criminal case at the time of his appointment. But he has intimated in the enrollment form that no criminal case pending against him, which is absolutely out and out a false statement. Action has been taken against him for violation of Section 23 of the B.S.F. Act, 1968, following the due procedure and granting full opportunity of examination and cross-examination and order of termination was passed, which was challenged by him before the Appellate Authority by which the order has also been affirmed.

¶31

Counsel further submits that there is no provision in law that after passing order by the Appellate Authority, a representation should be entertained annexing the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, and therefore, the present

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.9940 of 2022(3) dt.31-01-2026 4/4

¶33

writ petition fit to be dismissed.

¶34

Upon going through the documents and hearing the parties, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner’s service has been treated by the respondent authorities in accordance with the BSC Act, 1968 and whatever opportunity available under law has been provided to him. The prayer of the petitioner for entertainment of his representation after affirmation of termination from Appellate Authority is not permissible in law. Therefore, this Court has not option, but to dismiss the present writ petition.

¶35

With the aforesaid directions and observations, the present writ application stands dismissed.

¶36

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶37

Prakashmani/-

¶38

Chandan Kumar Suman v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Kumar Suman v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmi Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Abhinash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Bishwajeet Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Binaya Nand Pathak Vs The State of Bihar

Ragini Kumari @ Ragini Devi Vs The Union of India

Naubat Narayan Singh Vs The State of Bihar