The main legal point established in the judgment is that bias projected by the decision-maker and procedural irregularities during an inquiry can vitiate the decision and lead to the quashing of the dismissal order.

1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal which already stands admitted way back on 06-11-2002 and now before us for its final disposal is directed against the judgment/order dated 26-04-2002 of learned Single Judge vide which order dated 23.8.1998 whereby dismissing respondent/writ petitioner-Shailendra Kumar from service stands quashed directing the appellants (respondents in the main writ petition) to reinstate him with all consequential and monetary benefits.

2. We have feel the necessity of giving flash back of facts of the present case in brief:-

Shailendra Kumar-respondent/writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as petitioner) was enrolled as constable in Border Security Force in July, 1990. He was transferred from 126 Bn. to 199 Bn. stationed at Srinagar. He was granted 15 days Earned Leave for visiting his native place by the concerned authority and was supposed to report back on 05-05-1998, whereas he joined his duties late by 13 days for which he was punished under Section 53 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (for short hereinafter to be referred to "as BSF Act") and awarded 14 days imprisonment in Force custody. During custody period, he is stated to have committed another offence by refusing to do pack drill which is a part of routine for prisoners undergoing Rigorous Imprisonment for which disciplinary action was initiated and ultimately he was dismissed from service which order now stands quashed by the learned writ Court primarily on the ground that the participation of appellant No.3 in the Summary Security Force Court was un-desirable as there was a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the writ petitioner that he would not be fair in his dealings. Other view taken by the learned Writ Court is that the punishment awarded to the writ petitioner was disproportionate to the misconduct for which he was charged. If one peruses the impugned judgment carefully, primarily the whole proceedings have been held vitiated on the basis of the bias projected by writ petitioner against appellant No.3 (Commandant), operative part thereof, for reference reads thus:-

"Since I have held the whole proceedings of the Summary Security Force Court as having been vitiated on the basis of the bias entertained by the Commandant against the petitioner, the order dated 23.8.1998 passed by the Commandant suffers from the same vice. Consequently, the order passed by the Director General, BSF, being the appellate authority, on the statutory petition of the petitioner, too cannot be sustained because the order was one of affirmation.

3. It needs to be mentioned here that for arriving at the aforesaid conclusion the writ Court has based its view on factual aspect of the matter which is borne out from the record.

4. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned CGSC for the appellants who was also representing Union of India before the learned writ Court makes a statement at the bar that the relevant record was made available to the learned writ Court. He has produced the same before us also.

5. Heard Mr. Sharma learned CGSC appearing for the appellants and Mr. Rahul Bharti, Advocate learned counsel for respondent at length.

6. Mr. Sharma primarily submits that the proceedings of Summary Security Force Court (for short S.S.F.C) are normally not made subject to judicial review by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These proceedings are not made subject matter of even superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. The S.S.F.C was properly constituted and no challenge was thrown by writ petitioner to its composition, as such, the finding arrived at by it is not open to challenge it in the writ petition. The petitioner had also filed an appeal against the order of dismissal of service before the concerned authority and failed. Therefore the writ petition was liable to dismissed on this short ground alone.

7. Mr. Sharma then submits that even, otherwise, the learned writ Court should not have gone deep into minutest procedural aspect of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document