The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision-making process of a court-martial is subject to limited judicial review in administrative law, and the orders do not need to contain explicit reasons as per the Army Rules, 1954.

Y. R. TRIPATHI, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the verdict given by the summary court-martial holding the petitioner guilty as also for quashing the appellate order whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the verdict of the summary court martial has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus to be issued to the opposite parties commanding them to reinstate him to the post held by him at the time of his dismissal with consequential benefits of service including pay and allowances.

( 2 ) THE petitioner having been enrolled in the Indian Army in medical corpse was working on the post of Naik at the relevant time and was posted as operation room assistant at the A. D. M. Battalion A. M. C. Centre and School, Cantonment, Lucknow. It is said that he impersonating himself as Naik Om Prakash of 325 Lt. A. D. Regiment and Naik Sadanand Roy of Military hospital, Belgam sponsored respectively Sri Bindeshwar Prasad, son of Sri Sobhi Sahu and Sri suman Kant Bharti for their enrolment in the Army, consequent upon which they were enrolled. On this fact coming to light, the petitioner was tried for the offence under Section 63 of the army Act, 1950 by a summary court-martial which held him guilty of the charge and besides reducing him to ranks also sentenced him to R. I. for six months and dismissal from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said verdict of summary court-martial which failed to bear fruit and was rejected. Aggrieved from the punishment inflicted by the summary court-martial as also the rejection of his appeal by the appellate authority, the petitioner has preferred this petition assailing both the aforesaid orders inter alia on the grounds that his trial by the summary court-martial was bad in law and the orders of the summary court-martial and the appellate authority being non-speaking are not legally sustainable.

( 3 ) CAPTAIN Trilochan Singh, who has filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties, has justified the trial held by the summary court-martial and the orders passed by it as well as the appellate authority.

( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length and have gone through the materials on record.

( 5 ) IT has not been disputed before me that the scope of judicial review in administrative law is very limited and it is only the decision making process and not the merits of the decision itself which is reviewable, as this Court will not sit as an appellate court while exercising the power of judicial review. It is also well-settled that in exercise of the power of review, this Court cannot substitute its own finding for the finding recorded by the summary court-martial based on evidence. Having these limitations in mind, I now proceed to discuss the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned orders mainly on the grounds, that the petitioner was not allowed to get his handwriting compared with the disputed sponsorship forms and was thereby denied the reasonable opportunity of hearing that neither the order of guilty nor the appellate order contain any reason ; that oath was not administered to the members constituting the summary court-martial and the witnesses appearing before it and that the punishment awarded is harsh and excessive.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the allegation made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner had made a request at the time of trial for getting the disputed handwriting of sponsorship forms compared with his handwriting by an expert but the said request was neither recorded, nor accepted. It has further been alleged that when the sponsorship forms were said to have been filled in by the petitioner, he was on medical leave and was outside

Click Here to Read the rest of this document