2013 (10) TMI 1521 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legal propriety of the Tribunal's judgment.
2. Alleged irregularity in hiring Civil Hired Transport (CHT).
3. Violation of Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954.
4. Non-supply of documents.
5. Inclusion of biased members in the Court of Inquiry (CoI).

Summary:

1. Legal Propriety of the Tribunal's Judgment:
The Supreme Court examined the legal propriety of the Tribunal's judgment dated 12-12-2012, which set aside the decision of the additional CoI and directed a fresh CoI with a different Presiding Officer and other independent members.

2. Alleged Irregularity in Hiring Civil Hired Transport:
A complaint was made on 5-8-2009 against Respondent 1, a Colonel in the Army, alleging irregularities in hiring CHT for supplying ordnance stores. The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Pune initiated an action by attaching Respondent 1 to Headquarters Sub-Area and convening a Board of Officers, which led to the CoI.

3. Violation of Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954:
Respondent 1 challenged the CoI proceedings before the Tribunal, contending deprivation of the right to cross-examine witnesses as per Rule 180 and non-supply of documents annexed after the CoI proceedings. The Tribunal initially found no merit in the grievance regarding cross-examination but acknowledged the non-supply of documents as a violation of Rule 180.

4. Non-Supply of Documents:
The Tribunal found that certain documents annexed to the CoI report were not made available to Respondent 1, violating Rule 180. Consequently, the Tribunal directed an additional CoI limited to these documents, allowing Respondent 1 to cross-examine witnesses related to those documents.

5. Inclusion of Biased Members in the Court of Inquiry (CoI):
Respondent 1 objected to the inclusion of Brig. N.S Ahamed as Presiding Officer and two Technical Members, Lt. Col. Sandeep Sinha and Maj. Sanjeev Narula, in the additional CoI, alleging bias. The Tribunal held that the inclusion of these members, who had prepared and arranged the documents, violated the principles of natural justice and Rule 180. The Tribunal concluded that their involvement raised a reasonable apprehension of bias, thus vitiating the additional CoI proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to quash the additional CoI and all consequential actions, directing a fresh additional CoI with different, unbiased members. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the necessity of impartiality and adherence to procedural safeguards in CoI proceedings.