9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Convening of Court Martial and Application of Mind by Convening Authority. 2. Charges Finalized Without Completed Summary of Evidence. 3. Failure to Permit Inspection of Documents. 4. Institutional Bias and Change of Judge Advocate. 5. Denial of Fair Judicial Review u/s 160 and 161 of Navy Act. 6. Lack of Evidence to Support the Charge. 7. Relief and Consequential Benefits. Summary: 1. Convening of Court Martial and Application of Mind by Convening Authority: The petitioner challenged the convening of the court martial on 1st November 1990, arguing non-compliance with Regulation 156 of the Navy Regulations, which mandates the Convening Authority to ensure that the charges are correct and supported by evidence. The court found that the Convening Authority did not have sufficient time to scrutinize the voluminous documents, indicating a lack of application of mind. The judgment cited the case of Zahoor Ahmed v. Union of India to emphasize the importance of sufficient time for scrutiny to ensure an informed decision. 2. Charges Finalized Without Completed Summary of Evidence: The petitioner contended that the charges were finalized when the Summary of Evidence was incomplete. The court noted that additional statements were recorded after the court martial commenced, which indicated gaps in the prosecution's case. The court referenced the case of Manusukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat to highlight the necessity of independent satisfaction by the sanctioning authority. 3. Failure to Permit Inspection of Documents: The petitioner was not allowed meaningful inspection of documents, which were part of bulky files containing irrelevant data. The Trial Judge Advocate denied the request for photocopies, allowing only two hours for inspection. This was seen as a violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Institutional Bias and Change of Judge Advocate: The petitioner argued that the Trial Judge Advocate, Commander B.K. Ahluwalia, who was involved in drafting the charge sheet and advising the prosecutor, could not be impartial. The court cited the case of Sansar Chand v. Union of India to support the contention of institutional bias, emphasizing that justice must not only be done but also appear to be done. 5. Denial of Fair Judicial Review u/s 160 and 161 of Navy Act: The judicial review was conducted by the same authority who had initially found merit in the charges, violating the principle that no one should be a judge in their own cause. The court referenced A.K. Kraipak and Others v. Union of India & Others to underline the importance of avoiding bias. The review by the Chief of Naval Staff, who had previously been involved in the case, was found to lack fairness. 6. Lack of Evidence to Support the Charge: The court found no evidence to support charge No. 7, which accused the petitioner of misappropriating Rs. 20,000. The testimony of PW-4, Lt. A.K. Ahuja, was found to be unreliable and contradicted by PW-12, Shri D.K. Das, Branch Manager, State Bank of India. The court emphasized that the finding of guilt must be based on evidence beyond reasonable doubt, referencing the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India. 7. Relief and Consequential Benefits: The court quashed the orders dated 8th December 2010 (Armed Forces Tribunal), 1st November 1990, 15th March 1991 (General Court Martial), and 27th August 1991 (Chief of Naval Staff). The petitioner was entitled to notional reinstatement with 50% arrears of salary from 15th March 1991 until retirement and full pension thereafter. The court directed the respondents to compute and pay the amounts within six weeks and awarded costs of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner.
|
