Judicial review of disciplinary actions in uniformed services is limited to checking the decision-making process and procedural legality. Courts may intervene to set aside a punishment that is so disproportionate to the proved misconduct that it shocks the judicial conscience, warranting reconsideration by the disciplinary authority.

Judgment :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. The writ petitioner, a member of the Border Security Force enrolled as a Constable (General Duty) on October 21, 1999, invokes the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him while posted at the 2nd Battalion Headquarters, National Disaster Response Force, Digberia, District Barasat, West Bengal. The petitioner asserted this Hon’ble Court possessed territorial jurisdiction over the present lis, since the entire disciplinary action, including the Court of Inquiry and the consequential Record of Evidence proceedings, originated within the territorial limits of this Court and the relevant records continued to remain in the custody of the respondent authorities stationed at Digberia, Barasat.

2. The respondents, being instrumentalities of the Union of India functioning under the administrative control of the Ministry of Home Affairs, are stated to be “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The petitioner further contends that allegations of mala fide exercise of power have specifically been levelled against certain superior officers, necessitating their impleadment in the proceeding by name.

3. The petitioner places considerable emphasis upon his unblemished service career extending over more than a decade, during which he is stated to have rendered dedicated service to the nation and earned several commendations and awards from the respondent authorities. Against this backdrop, the petitioner narrates an incident alleged to have occurred on February 21, 2013 at the official residential quarters occupied by his wife at the Battalion campus. According to the petitioner, one Sub-Inspector Gulab Singh, accompanied by several other individuals, forcibly entered the petitioner’s residential premises in his absence, abused his wife in filthy language, physically assaulted her and outraged her modesty by applying criminal force upon her person. It was alleged that when the petitioner’s wife protested and pleaded for release, she was manhandled, dragged by her hair and thrown to the ground, causing humiliation and mental trauma.

4. Upon returning home and learning the incident, the petitioner immediately approached the local police station and lodged a criminal complaint against the said Gulab Singh and others, resulting in the registration of Barasat Police Station Case No. 290 dated February 21, 2013 under Sections 448, 323, 354, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner contended that the subsequent departmental proceedings instituted against him were nothing but a retaliatory mechanism designed to shield the erring superior officer from criminal prosecution and to wreak vengeance upon the petitioner for having invoked the ordinary process of criminal law.

5. It was the petitioner’s case that immediately after the registration of the criminal case, a one-man Court of Inquiry was constituted b