Dismissal of Coast Guard Personnel Set Aside for Breach of Natural Justice: Delhi High Court Orders Fresh BOI Within Eight Weeks

“Violation of Rule 39(4) Fatal—No Real Opportunity to Defend in Coast Guard Liquor Smuggling Case”, Delhi High Court, in a significant judgment, quashed the dismissal orders of 25 Indian Coast Guard personnel accused of smuggling 1,512 bottles of illicit liquor on board ICGS Sarthak, citing procedural violations, denial of fair hearing, and non-compliance with statutory rules. A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed the decision in the lead matter Arun Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., WP(C) No. 5080/2024 and connected petitions.

The Court held that the Board of Inquiry (BOI) proceedings and subsequent dismissals under Section 11(b) of the Coast Guard Act, 1978, were vitiated by non-compliance with Rule 39(4) of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986, and violated the principles of natural justice. The Court directed the authorities to conduct fresh BOI proceedings within eight weeks, strictly in accordance with law.

“Natural Justice Is Not a Ritual—Dismissals Unsustainable Without Fair Opportunity to Defend”

The Court observed:“Rule 39(4) mandates that personnel must be given a fair opportunity to be present throughout the inquiry, make statements, furnish evidence, cross-examine witnesses and produce witnesses in their defence. These safeguards were blatantly disregarded.”

Despite the serious nature of allegations involving liquor smuggling on board a defence vessel, the Court emphasized that disciplinary action must adhere to due process. It found that the petitioners were not provided copies of the Board of Inquiry report, Offence Report, Abstract of Evidence, or other crucial documents, and that typed statements without signatures were relied upon to justify their dismissals.

“The handwritten admissions were allegedly extracted under duress and the typed statements lacked signatures—making them legally unreliable and procedurally inadmissible.”

“Rule 28(d) Can Be Invoked to Set Aside Illegal Summary Punishments Even Without Approval Requirement”

A core legal issue was whether minor punishments awarded under Section 57(g) (which do not require prior approval) could be set aside under Rule 28(d), which is invoked by officers with power to approve punishments. The Court upheld the DIG’s decision to set aside summary punishments due to procedural bias and destruction of evidence.

“To hold that the DIG possesses the power to impose punishments but not to approve or set them aside would create legal absurdity.”

The Court clarified that Rule 28(d) is not limited to punishments requiring approval under Section 57(a)–(d), and extends to any punishment that an approving officer finds to be illegal, unjust or excessive.

“Dismissal Orders Quashed Due to Vagueness, Lack of Evidence, and Mechanical Decision-Making”

The show-cause notices issued under Section 11(b) were held to be vague and deficient, lacking specific dates, witnesses, or material facts. The petitioners’ replies were rejected as “unsatisfactory” without reasoning.

“A show-cause notice must disclose all material relied upon. Failure to do so violates the very essence of the right to respond.”

The Court emphasized that the dismissal orders made mechanical reference to prior statements and alleged admissions, without establishing a genuine inquiry or meaningful opportunity to refute the allegations.

“BOI Findings Cannot Be Used as Substantive Evidence Without Complying With Rule 39(4)”

The Court ruled that the Board of Inquiry proceedings, even if preliminary in nature, must follow Rule 39(4) when they form the basis of dismissal or adverse findings. Since this rule was completely violated, the BOI proceedings were held to be legally unsustainable.

Citing Maj. R.K. Sareen v. Union of India and Lt. Gen. Surendra Kumar Saini v. COAS, the Court held:

“When the character or reputation of a person is at stake, natural justice demands that he be allowed to participate fully in the inquiry and be furnished all relevant material.”

“Coast Guard Personnel Not Covered by Article 311, But Still Entitled to Procedural Fairness Under Article 14”

Rejecting the petitioners’ claim under Article 311 of the Constitution, the Court reaffirmed that Coast Guard personnel serve at the pleasure of the President under Article 310, citing UOI v. Major S.P. Sharma.

However, the Court held that this does not mean personnel can be dismissed without due process:

“Procedural safeguards like Rule 23 and Rule 39(4) are statutorily binding and must be followed, even in the absence of Article 311 protections.”

“Dismissals Set Aside—Fresh Inquiry Ordered Within 8 Weeks”

The Court ordered that the impugned dismissal orders dated 28.02.2024 and accompanying Genforms dated 05.03.2024 and 13.03.2024 be set aside, and directed that fresh BOI proceedings be conducted within eight weeks from the date the order is served.

“The petitioners must be afforded real and effective participation in the inquiry. The outcome of the new BOI will determine their service status.”

The Court declined to grant reinstatement with back wages at this stage, keeping the matter open depending on the fresh BOI.

Due Process Is Indispensable, Even for Armed Forces Personnel

This judgment reaffirms the constitutional principle that administrative authority must act fairly, transparently, and in accordance with statutory procedure, particularly when service termination is at stake. Even in disciplined forces like the Coast Guard, natural justice cannot be sacrificed.

The Delhi High Court's verdict stands as a reminder that fairness is not a formality—it is the foundation of lawful governance.

Date of Decision: 11.11.2025