Extra-Marital Affair and Leaked Obscene Photos Of Senior Officer With Constable: Delhi High Court Affirms BSF Officer’s Forced Retirement

“An Officer Who Cannot Keep His Impulses in Check Off the Field Cannot Be Entrusted With the Security of the Nation”, In a powerful reaffirmation of the stringent ethical standards expected from members of the armed forces, the Delhi High Court upheld the compulsory retirement of a BSF officer accused of engaging in an extra-marital relationship with a female constable and allowing compromising photographs to leak into the public domain via social media. The Court ruled that invoking Rule 20(2) of the BSF Rules, 1969 to dispense with a General Security Force Court (GSFC) was justified and legally sustainable, rejecting the plea that disciplinary due process had been denied.

The Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, while dismissing the writ petition, observed:

“A disciplined soldier on the field cannot afford to be a profligate off it... An officer who cannot keep his impulses in check off the field cannot be entrusted with the security of the nation.”

“Discipline Is the Very Raison d’être of the Armed Forces”

The judgment came in the case titled XXX v. Union of India & Anr., where the petitioner challenged his removal under Rule 20(4)(c) following the issuance of a show cause notice grounded in Rule 20(2). The officer’s defence primarily contested the dispensation of GSFC, asserting that such a course should be reserved for extraordinary situations, and that the alleged misconduct — being a consensual relationship — did not warrant bypassing the formal trial mechanism.

The Court, however, categorically held that the misconduct in question — involving a senior officer entering into an illicit relationship with a subordinate woman constable, and the existence of intimate photographs which eventually became public — was so fundamentally inconsistent with the integrity and decorum expected in uniformed services that disciplinary action without GSFC was entirely permissible.

“Entering into an extra-marital liaison is unacceptable from an officer of the Forces. It erodes public confidence in the moral standards of such an officer,” remarked the Bench.

Relationship Was Consensual — But Still Grave Misconduct, Rules Court

The petitioner admitted during the Staff Court of Inquiry (SCOI) that he had become intimate with the woman constable during an overnight stay at a hotel in Ludhiana in 2013, after attending a wedding. He further acknowledged that the photographs were taken from her mobile phone and were later leaked after her SD card was allegedly stolen.

“The intimacy was consensual... My wife was unaware until the photographs went viral on WhatsApp, after which I informed her,” he said during the inquiry.

Despite the absence of any formal complaint from either the woman constable or the petitioner’s wife, the Inspector General (IG) of BSF found that the officer’s conduct was “unbecoming of an officer” and clearly violative of the discipline expected in the Force, recommending disciplinary action under Rule 20.

“Inexpedient” Doesn’t Mean “Impossible”: Court Broadens Scope of Rule 20(2)

A key legal contention raised by the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Ankur Chhibber, was that Rule 20(2) must be read narrowly and invoked only when holding a GSFC is truly impracticable. However, the High Court clarified the legal position emphatically:

“The expression ‘inexpedient’ is much wider than ‘not reasonably practicable’... It includes cases where a GSFC may not be suitable or appropriate to achieve disciplinary objectives.”

The Court analysed dictionary definitions and precedents to affirm that “inexpedient” must be construed contextually and with latitude, allowing authorities to act where formal court proceedings may not serve the institutional interest of preserving discipline and morale.

Rule 20(2) Not Subordinate to Article 311(2)(c), Holds Court

The Court also brushed aside the petitioner’s reliance on the Full Bench judgment in Laishram Sushil Singh, which dealt with Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution. The Bench clarified that:

“Rule 20(2) of the BSF Rules operates independently and is not constrained by the requirement of State security, unlike Article 311(2)(c)... The two provisions are not pari materia and function on distinct legal planes.”

This distinction enabled the Court to uphold the wide discretion conferred upon the DG BSF under Rule 20(2) to initiate termination proceedings without the need to prove threat to state security, so long as the action was reasonable, procedurally fair, and grounded in serious misconduct.

Petitioner Had Full Opportunity to Be Heard — No Breach of Natural Justice

Addressing the claim that natural justice was violated, the Court underscored that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself. He participated in the SCOI, the Additional SCOI, and responded to a detailed show cause notice, which provided him access to all relevant records and witness testimonies.

“It is not, therefore, as though the petitioner was condemned unheard,” the Court concluded.

Moral Standards Cannot Be Compromised in Uniformed Forces

In perhaps the most damning part of the judgment, the Bench laid bare the underlying rationale for its decision, holding that the conduct of the officer was incompatible with continued service:

“The very act of entering into such a liaison with another female officer, and of taking photographs of the incident... was by itself sufficient for the executive authorities to arrive at the subjective decision that the holding of a GSFC was inexpedient.”

The Court further held that the officer's own admissions in the inquiry proceedings established a clear case of moral impropriety, which undermined his credibility and the values of the Force.

Disciplinary Authority’s Decision Was Lawful and Immune to Judicial Interference

Dismissing the writ petition in its entirety, the High Court held that no interference was warranted under the constitutional framework of Article 226, as the decision was grounded in objective facts, procedural fairness, and lawful discretion.

“We find ourselves unable to come to the aid of the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.”

This judgment stands as a sobering reminder to all officers in uniform that personal indiscretions — especially when they publicly undermine the integrity of the institution — can attract the harshest disciplinary outcomes, even in the absence of criminal charges or formal complaints.

Date of Decision: November 12, 2025