NEW DELHI: A piquant situation has arisen in the Border Security Force (BSF) with a four-member General Security Force Court (GSFC), which tried a commandant based at Bandipur in Kashmir on six grave charges of misconduct early this year, last month itself accused by the paramilitary force’s top leadership for “blatantly disregarding the evidence on record” during the court martial proceedings.
In a strongly-worded letter to the GSFC members, including a commandant of the force’s 163rd battalion in Srinagar, a DIG from the Confidential Section, writing “for and on behalf of DG BSF”, said that after the case was “examined in detail at this HQ…the DG BSF has taken a serious view of act of omission and commission on your part…and proposed to convey his warning to you”.
The GSFC members were also served a “show cause as to why the DG’s warning should not be conveyed to you for the above omission and commission on your part”. Documents show that the GSFC trial, which is the most stringent among the three categories of proceedings under the 1968 BSF Act, was held against Bandipur-based Commandant Deepak Kandpal at Kupwara between January 17 and February 18, 2022, on six charges. However, the “GSFC found the accused (Kandpal) ‘Not Guilty’ of all the six charges subject to confirmation of the Confirming Authority”. A BSF DIG presided over the GSFC trial.
An August 10 “confidential” BSF note reveals that “during scrutiny of trial proceedings” by an Additional Director General (who was the confirming authority) based at BSF’s Western Command, it was found that the GSFC’s findings on three of the six charges were “against the weight of evidence”.
The first charge under Section 35(a) of the BSF Act against Kandpal was “for knowingly making a false statement”. Kandpal had allegedly mentioned his date of departure in his “tour diary” from “Bn HQ Bhopal” as December 15, 2019 , whereas he “actually departed” on December 14, 2019.
According to the second charge, under Section 40 of the BSF Act (act prejudicial to good order and discipline), Kandpal would make “frequent calls” to a female sub-inspector “on her mobile phone at odd hours”. A document reveals that “there was evidence on record that frequent calls were made by the accused” to the female SI.
Apparently, the GSFC “believed their (Kandpal’s and the SI’s) version and held that making these calls by Comdt to the said SI cannot be considered as prejudicial to good order and discipline as the accused, being Comdt of the Bn, has discharged his responsibility as guardian by extending his help and guidance to the needy female employee of his Battalion in good faith”.
‘Against the weight of evidence’
An August 10 “confidential” BSF note reveals that “during scrutiny of trial proceedings” by an Additional Director General (who was the confirming authority) based at BSF’s Western Command, it was found that the GSFC’s findings on three of the six charges were “against the weight of evidence”.