Scope of Judicial Review Under Article 226 Limited to Decision-Making Process, Not Merits of Evidence.

The Petitioner, a Constable (GD) in the Border Security Force (BSF), was charged with pointing his personal weapon at superior officers and using insubordinate/threatening language on 26.07.2021

He was further charged with violating orders by using a mobile phone on duty and subsequently destroying it to eliminate evidence

A Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) tried the Petitioner from 02.08.2021 to 04.08.2021, and he was dismissed from service after being found guilty

The Petitioner’s Statutory Petition was dismissed on 26.10.2022

The Petitioner challenged these orders under Article 226, alleging a violation of natural justice, claiming he was denied the opportunity to lead evidence or cross-examine witnesses

1. Whether the SSFC trial proceedings were vitiated due to a violation of the principles of natural justice and denial of opportunity to defend

2. Whether the High Court, under Article 226, can reappreciate evidence or substitute factual findings made by the competent authorities

The court applied Sections 20(b), 20(c), 22(a), and 40 of the BSF Act, 1968, regarding insubordination, neglect of orders, and conduct prejudicial to discipline

Regarding the scope of judicial review, the court relied on the principle established in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (1963), which mandates that writ jurisdiction is limited to the decision-making process and precludes the reappreciation of evidence or substitution of factual findings

The Court scrutinized the original SSFC trial records, which contradicted the Petitioner’s claims. The records revealed that the Petitioner pleaded "not guilty," was present during the examination of six prosecution witnesses, and actively exercised his right to cross-examine them

Furthermore, the record showed that the Petitioner was specifically asked if he wished to call defense witnesses but declined, choosing instead to submit a written statement

The Court observed that the Petitioner had participated fully in the process, and the findings of the SSFC were backed by cogent factual evidence

Consequently, since the decision-making process was procedurally sound and fair, the Court held there was no ground to interfere with the merits of the disciplinary action

The Court dismissed the petition, affirming that it does not sit in appeal over the factual findings of the BSF authorities when the trial process is legally valid

The dismissal from service stands.