Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the conviction and dismissal of a BSF officer by the General Security Force Court (GSFC) under Section 24(a) of the BSF Act, 1968, for committing sodomy on a constable. The Court held that:
“There is no procedural infirmity/illegality or violation of principles of natural justice or any Rules that would justify the interference with the Impugned Order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
It emphasized that departmental proceedings differ from criminal trials in standard of proof and procedure, and found the GSFC proceedings to be legally sound and supported by cogent evidence.
Facts
- The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the BSF, was accused by a Constable of having committed sodomy during the night of 14–15 February 1997 at the BOP Maratha Hill.
- The complaint was filed three days later. A Record of Evidence (ROE) was prepared, and the GSFC was convened.
- Following trial, the petitioner was convicted and dismissed from service on 6 March 1999. The order was confirmed by the Inspector General, BSF, and the statutory appeal was rejected.
Issues
- Whether the GSFC proceedings were vitiated due to lack of medical evidence or procedural irregularities.
- Whether the constitution of the GSFC was invalid due to potential bias of the Presiding Officer.
- Whether the delay in filing the complaint rendered it unreliable.
- Whether the High Court could interfere with the findings of a departmental tribunal under Article 226.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Alleged that the GSFC proceedings suffered from procedural irregularities, including absence of medical evidence and scientific analysis of undergarments.
- Argued the complaint was filed with a delay of three days, raising doubts about its authenticity.
- Asserted that Shri S.K. Sood, Presiding Officer of the GSFC, had earlier dealt with the case in a preliminary capacity and was thus biased.
- Claimed that the Law Officer of the GSFC exceeded his role by offering opinions on factual issues.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Emphasized strict compliance with BSF Act and Rules, and adherence to principles of natural justice.
- Explained that medical examination could not be conducted due to remoteness of the BOP, but the case was supported by direct and corroborative witness testimonies.
- Denied that Shri S.K. Sood was involved in the preliminary inquiry and pointed out that petitioner had raised no objection to the tribunal’s constitution at the relevant time.
- Cited precedents to assert the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226, particularly in matters of factual appreciation and disciplinary jurisdiction.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated the well-settled principle that judicial review under Article 226 is confined to examining the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself. It relied on:
- B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 – Judicial review does not permit reappreciation of evidence unless there is perversity or procedural unfairness.
- Union of India v. Dalbir Singh (2021) 11 SCC 321 – Departmental inquiries are governed by “preponderance of probabilities,” not “proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
Precedent Analysis
The Court specifically relied upon:
- Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corporation – Distinguished standards in criminal vs. departmental proceedings.
- Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610 – Bar on judicial reassessment of evidence in service matters.
- Ex. Subedar R.K. Sharma v. UOI – Limited scope of interference with court martial findings.
Court’s Reasoning
- The Court found that the GSFC proceedings strictly complied with the law, and the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself.
- Testimonies of the complainant and other witnesses, including the Cook (PW-2) and Company Commander (PW-6), corroborated the incident.
- The alleged bias of the Presiding Officer was dismissed as an afterthought, especially since the petitioner had raised no objection initially.
- The Law Officer’s summing up did not violate Rule 126 of BSF Rules.
- Delay in complaint was explained and justified based on the psychological trauma suffered by the complainant.
Conclusion
The Court concluded that:
“There has been overwhelming evidence to support the version of the complainant… The version of the complainant was duly corroborated by all witnesses produced by the prosecution… The testimony… is impeccable.”
The petition challenging the disciplinary action was found meritless and accordingly dismissed.
Implications
This judgment affirms:
- The autonomy of disciplinary tribunals like GSFC in service matters.
- That procedural deviations or absence of forensic evidence do not vitiate departmental inquiries if otherwise based on credible testimony.
- The judiciary’s reluctance to interfere in factual findings of specialized tribunals unless due process violations are apparent.