Counsel for the appellant(s) prays for and is granted two days' time to remove the default. However, it is submitted that in view of the urgency, the matter may be taken up.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing It is submitted by counsel for appellants that at the time of enrollment in BSF, respondent had given a false answer with regard to his educational qualification. By referring to sections 23 and 77 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (for short "the Act") , it is submitted that giving false answer at the time of enrollment is an offence liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or such less punishment as mentioned in the Act. It is also submitted that as per section 77 of the Act, the Offender can be kept in force custody even prior to his trial and punishment. It is submitted that earlier the respondent had challenged the order dated 22/5/2026 by filing W.P. No.19280/2026. Thereafter, at the request of counsel for respondent, the case was adjourned and was directed to be listed after summer vacations. It appears that on 30/5/2026, the Authorities exercised the jurisdiction vested in them in the light of section 77 of the Act and directed the respondent not to leave the premises of Faculty of Studies (FoS) and SOs Purohit Hostel at BSF Academy, Gwalior 2 WA-1889-2026 without prior written permission of Commandant (FoS), BSF Tekanpur. Thereafter, on the request made by counsel for respondent, the matter was taken up on 10/6/2026 and by the impugned order the effect and operation of order dated 30/5/2026 has been stayed. It is submitted that since the respondent has not claimed that marksheet of Class X, on which he has placed reliance is a genuine marksheet and the BSF after getting the said marksheet verified from the concerning Board has come to know that the marksheet relied upon by the respondent was a forged marskheet and respondent had given false answer at the time of his enrollment, therefore, the action had been initiated. It is submitted that BSF is a disciplined force in Uniform and any indiscipline will not only bring disrepute to the Force but may also encourage such persons to make false statements by relying upon forged documents.
Per contra counsel for respondent, by relying upon paragraph (D) of his writ petition, submitted that although respondent had not specifically claimed that the marksheet of Class X which has been relied upon by him is a genuine marksheet, but he has taken a specific stand that there is a presumption about correctness of Class X marksheet. It is also submitted by counsel for respondent that the marksheet has not been proved to be incorrect or false so far and accordingly, there was no reason for the respondent to pass the restraint order against the respondent.
In reply, it is submitted by counsel for appellants that appellants had got the marksheet of respondent verified from the concerning Board and a verification report dated 8/5/2026 has been received to the effect that the marksheet relied upon by the respondent was a forged document and was never issued by the concerning examination Board.
Counsel for the respondent prays for time to file reply to the writ appeal, as 3 WA-1889-2026 well as, to the contention raised by counsel for appellants that verification report has been received to the effect that marksheet relied upon by the respondent is forged.
Accordingly, counsel for appellants is directed to supply a copy of the verification report dated 8/5/2026 to counsel for respondent.
Counsel for respondent prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file reply.
As an interim measure, it is directed effect and operation of order dated 10/6/2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 19280/2026 shall remain stayed.
List this case on 6/7/2026 for further orders on interim relief.
