Tripura HC Upholds BSF Head Constable’s Dismissal for Drunken Firing of 20 Rounds

The Tripura High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Border Security Force Head Constable who, while allegedly intoxicated on observation-post duty in West Tripura, fired all 20 rounds from his service rifle into the air and later pointed the weapon at superior officers who reached the spot.

In a judgment delivered on August 11, 2026, Justice Biswajit Palit rejected the writ petition filed by Som Nath, a Head Constable (General Duty) of the 42nd Battalion, BSF, and found no reason to interfere with the decision of the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC). The case was registered as WP(C) No. 579 of 2025 and reported as 2026:THC:1105.

The court’s ruling stems from an incident on December 6, 2023, when Nath was on 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 with a magazine loaded with 20 live rounds.

According to the prosecution version accepted by the SSFC, Nath fired all 20 rounds into the air around 2 pm while in an inebriated condition and without any apparent provocation. The firing caused panic in the area and prompted other BSF personnel to rush to the observation post.

About 20 minutes later, he allegedly aimed the rifle at 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.

Those who encountered Nath reported that he smelled of alcohol. An examination of the INSAS rifle also showed heavy gas fouling, which indicated that the weapon had recently been fired.

Nath was 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.

Disciplinary proceedings and charges

During the disciplinary process, Nath offered a different account of the incident. He claimed that he had noticed two boys engaged in suspicious activity near the fence, warned them and fired into the air while running after them. He also said he later became “puzzled and senseless” and could not clearly remember what happened next.

The SSFC did not accept that explanation. It relied on the evidence of 14 prosecution witnesses and other material before it to conclude that the version presented by Nath was not credible.

Three charges were framed against him under the Border Security Force Act, 1968. The first, under Section 20(a), alleged assault on a superior officer by aiming his service rifle at the Officiating Company Commander and others. The second, under Section 40, accused him of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline for indiscriminately firing 20 rounds. The third, under Section 22(e), concerned disobedience of a local order prohibiting liquor consumption.

The Summary Security Force Court was convened at the battalion headquarters in Fatikchera. Although Nath initially pleaded guilty, the SSFC recorded a plea of not guilty in the interest of justice and proceeded to examine the evidence.

After the proceedings concluded, the court found him guilty on all three counts.

While deciding punishment, the SSFC took into account Nath’s age of 53 years and 10 months, his more than 34 years of service and the ten rewards he had received during his career. It also considered six previous punishments on his service record, several of which involved intoxication and violations of local orders between 2019 and 2023.

On that basis, 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 the same day.

Challenge before the High Court

Nath then moved the Tripura High Court seeking to have the SSFC’s findings and sentence set aside and asking for a fresh trial. Among other grounds, he argued that he had not been allowed to engage counsel, that the charges had been framed under inappropriate provisions of the BSF Act, and that there was not enough medical evidence to prove intoxication.

He also contended that the allegations relating to intoxication ought to have been dealt with under Section 26 of the BSF Act rather than the provisions used in his case. He claimed that the proceedings had violated the principles of natural justice.

The Union of India opposed the petition and maintained that the disciplinary proceedings had been conducted in accordance with the BSF Rules. The government told the court 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 court was also informed that Nath had been given an opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses but had declined to do so. His earlier disciplinary record, including repeated offences linked to liquor, was also placed before the court.

Justice Palit reiterated that judicial review over decisions of Security Force Courts is limited. A High Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution does not sit as an appellate court over such disciplinary proceedings and ordinarily cannot reappreciate evidence simply because another view may be possible.

The court said interference is generally warranted only where there is a jurisdictional error, a breach of natural justice, a procedural illegality or findings that are so unreasonable as to justify judicial intervention.

Applying that standard to the present case, the court noted the seriousness of the allegations: Nath, while allegedly intoxicated, had indiscriminately fired all 20 rounds from his service weapon without reason or provocation and then aimed the rifle at the Officiating Company Commander and other officers who came to the scene.

The High Court further observed that Nath had not objected to the framing of charges during the SSFC proceedings and had failed to show that he was 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 any other legal ground to interfere 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 decision highlights the strict disciplinary regime governing Central Armed Police Forces personnel, particularly those on sensitive operational duty with loaded firearms. It also illustrates the severe consequences that can follow the misuse of a service weapon and consumption of alcohol while on armed duty.