9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
General Court Martial proceedings, Confirmation of sentence, Disciplinary proceedings under Central Civil Services Rules, Writ petition challenging orders of conviction and dismissal, Legality of suspension during custody, Legality of taking respondent into custody, Validity of dismissal based on Court Martial conviction, Perversity of GCM decision, Double jeopardy in concurrent proceedings. General Court Martial Proceedings: A General Court Martial (GCM) was initiated against the respondent for defrauding the Border Road Organisation. The respondent was found guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment, subject to confirmation. The GCM modified the sentence from one year to six months, leading to the respondent's release after completing six months. Disciplinary Proceedings under Central Civil Services Rules: After the GCM, disciplinary proceedings under the Central Civil Services Rules were initiated against the respondent, resulting in his dismissal. The respondent challenged these orders through a writ petition, leading to directions for fresh orders with reasons from the authorities concerned. Legality of Suspension during Custody: The High Court found fault with the authority for keeping the respondent under suspension during custody, contrary to Rule 10 of the Central Rules. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that suspension was valid as disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against the respondent. Legality of Taking Respondent into Custody: The Division Bench criticized the GCM for taking the respondent into custody immediately after sentencing without confirmation. The Supreme Court clarified that the action was in accordance with the Army Act's Section 167, which mandates custody upon sentencing by a Court Martial. Validity of Dismissal Based on Court Martial Conviction: The Division Bench faulted the disciplinary authority for dismissing the respondent solely based on the Court Martial conviction, alleging a pre-determined mind. The Supreme Court explained that Rule 19 of the Central Rules allows dismissal upon conviction in a criminal charge, ensuring due process and proportionality of punishment. Perversity of GCM Decision: The Division Bench deemed the GCM decision as perverse, lacking consideration of evidence. However, the Supreme Court found no factual basis for this claim, stating that the GCM's decision was supported by evidence, dismissing the allegation of perversity. Double Jeopardy in Concurrent Proceedings: The Supreme Court addressed the issue of double jeopardy due to concurrent proceedings under the Army Act and Central Rules. It concluded that these proceedings operate in different spheres - penal and disciplinary - and do not violate double jeopardy, citing legal provisions and precedents. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the actions taken during the GCM and disciplinary proceedings, dismissing the Division Bench's findings of faults. The Court clarified the procedural aspects and the distinct nature of the concurrent proceedings, ultimately quashing the Division Bench's judgment.
|
