Agartala, September 3, 2026: The Tripura High Court has upheld the dismissal from service of a Border Security Force (BSF) Head Constable who fired all 20 rounds from his service rifle into the air while allegedly intoxicated during observation-post duty and subsequently aimed the weapon at his superior officers.
Justice Biswajit Palit dismissed the writ petition filed by Som Nath, a Head Constable (General Duty) of the 42nd Battalion, BSF, finding no violation of natural justice or procedural irregularity warranting interference with the decision of the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC). The judgment was delivered on August 11, 2026, in WP(C) No. 579 of 2025 and is reported as 2026:THC:1105.
The incident dates back to December 6, 2023, when Nath was deployed for second-shift observation-post duty at OP No. 1 in the area of responsibility of Border Out Post Nischintpur in West Tripura. His duty hours were from 12 noon to 6 pm, and he had been issued a 5.56 mm INSAS rifle along with a magazine containing 20 live rounds.
According to the prosecution case accepted by the SSFC, at around 2 pm Nath, while in an inebriated condition, indiscriminately fired all 20 rounds from his service weapon into the air without any apparent provocation. The firing created panic in the area and prompted other BSF personnel to reach the observation post.
Around 20 minutes later, Nath allegedly aimed his service rifle towards Officiating Company Commander Inspector (GD) M. Surchandra Singh and other personnel who had arrived at the scene, including Sub-Inspector (GD) Somra Oraon, Assistant Sub-Inspector (GD) Dhanajay Tudu and Constable (GD) Nazeer Ahmad.
Personnel who encountered Nath reported smelling alcohol. An examination of his INSAS rifle also revealed heavy gas fouling, indicating that the weapon had recently been fired.
Nath was subsequently taken to Mohanpur Community Health Centre, where medical examination recorded alcohol intoxication. He was later referred to Agartala Government Medical College and GBP Hospital for further treatment and was discharged on December 9, 2023.
During the disciplinary proceedings, Nath presented a different account of what had happened. He claimed that while performing his duties he had noticed two boys engaged in suspicious activity near the fence. According to him, he warned them and fired into the air while running towards them.
He further claimed that he subsequently became “puzzled and senseless” and could not clearly remember the events that followed. The SSFC, however, rejected his explanation after considering the testimony of 14 prosecution witnesses and other evidence placed before it.
Three charges were framed against the Head Constable under the Border Security Force Act, 1968. The first, under Section 20(a), related to assaulting a superior officer by aiming his service rifle at the Officiating Company Commander and other personnel. The second charge, under Section 40, concerned conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline for indiscriminately firing 20 rounds. The third, under Section 22(e), related to disobedience of a local order prohibiting the consumption of liquor.
The Summary Security Force Court was convened at the battalion headquarters in Fatikchera. Although Nath had initially pleaded guilty, the SSFC recorded a plea of not guilty in the interest of justice and proceeded to examine the evidence against him.
After completion of the proceedings, the SSFC found him guilty of all three charges.
While deciding the punishment, the court considered Nath’s age of 53 years and 10 months, his more than 34 years of service and the ten rewards he had earned during his career. It also took into account six previous punishments on his service record, several of which involved intoxication and violations of local orders between 2019 and 2023.
Considering the nature of the offences and his disciplinary history, the SSFC sentenced him to dismissal from service. The findings and sentence were promulgated on January 3, 2024, and his name was struck off the strength of the unit on the same day.
Nath subsequently approached the Tripura High Court seeking to have the SSFC sentence quashed and asking for a fresh trial. He argued, among other things, that he had not been provided an opportunity to engage counsel, that the charges had been framed under inappropriate provisions of the BSF Act, and that there was insufficient medical evidence to establish intoxication.
He also contended that the allegations relating to intoxication should have been dealt with under Section 26 of the BSF Act rather than the provisions under which he had been charged, and alleged that the disciplinary proceedings violated the principles of natural justice.
The Union of India opposed the petition, maintaining that the proceedings had been conducted in accordance with the prescribed BSF Rules. The government submitted that Nath had been placed under suspension, a record of evidence had been prepared, and he had been offered the assistance of a “Friend of the Accused.”
The High Court was also informed that Nath had been provided an opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses but had declined to do so. His previous disciplinary record, including repeated offences involving liquor, was also placed before the court.
Justice Palit reiterated that the scope of judicial review over decisions of Security Force Courts is limited. A High Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution does not function as an appellate court over such disciplinary proceedings and ordinarily cannot reassess the evidence merely because another interpretation may be possible.
The High Court observed that interference would generally be justified only where proceedings suffered from jurisdictional errors, violation of natural justice, procedural illegality or findings so unreasonable as to warrant judicial intervention.
Referring to the seriousness of the incident, the court noted that the petitioner, while in an inebriated state, had indiscriminately fired 20 rounds from his service weapon without reason or provocation and thereafter aimed the rifle towards the Officiating Company Commander and other officers.
The court further found that Nath had not objected to the framing of the charges during the SSFC proceedings and had failed to establish that he had been denied an adequate opportunity to defend himself. It concluded that the relevant procedural requirements under the BSF Rules had been followed.
Finding no violation of natural justice or other legal ground warranting interference with the findings and punishment imposed by the Summary Security Force Court, the Tripura High Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit. Any pending applications connected with the case were also disposed of.
The judgment reinforces the stringent standards of discipline applicable to personnel of the Central Armed Police Forces, particularly those deployed on sensitive operational duties and entrusted with loaded firearms. The case also highlights the serious disciplinary consequences that can follow the misuse of a service weapon and consumption of alcohol while on armed duty.
