Border Security Force Rules, 1969 — Rr. 142, 143, 43, 45, 48, 49, Appendices IV and VI: Strict adherence to procedural safeguards
“Even if the claim of the petitioner that discrimination is meted out to retired personnel of BSF as against Ex-servicemen has to be accepted, the consequence would only be that the exemption and concession granted to Ex-servicemen in consumption of liquor would have to be withdrawn, but, it cannot be a ground on parity to extend the same benefit to the retired personnel of the BSF”
Supreme Court specifically highlighted the provision which cautioned that whatever the accused stated was to be taken down in writing and may be used in evidence.
The Court said that no proper show cause notice was served to the petitioner, violating the principle of audi alteram partem, thus, the dismissal from service was not in fair play.
The Court said that the search of the Commandant’s house did not result in recovery of any incriminating documents/article and without other materials incriminating the appellant or pointing to his guilt, the statement of a single person alone cannot result in conviction of the Commandant and deprive him of his pension benefits.
The Delhi High Court held that every personnel in the paramilitary forces should be entitled to the benefit of House Rent Allowance (HRA), irrespective of the rank as per their entitlement
“The history of legal proceedings such as these is a major factor that contributes to the deterrence that civil and criminal mechanisms pose to persons aggrieved of sexual harassment.”