9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 1163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reach of principles of natural justice. It was further held that the four charges had been established in the General Court Martial and that the Respondent was liable for punishment. It was however held that having regard to the nature and degree of the offences established the extreme and severe punishment of dismissal from service was violative of the provisions of Section 72 of the Army Act, 1950. The order of dismissal was set aside and the matter was sent back to the General Court Martial, for awarding any lesser punishment than dismissal from service. It was directed that the Respondent would not receive any salary and allowances for the period when he was out of service. Both the Appellant and the Respondent filed Appeals. The Appellate Court refused to grant any stay to the Appellants herein. The Appellants, therefore, approached this Court. This Court by an Order dated 7th August, 2000 granted an interim stay. This was then confirmed by an Order dated 16th October, 2000. By the Order dated 16th October, 2000 the High Court was requested to dispose of the Appeals expeditiously. The Division Bench has, in the impugned Order, relied upon the authority of this Court in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rifles on receipt of signal No. O 2140 dated 31 Oct. 84 from Tac HQ 11 Assam Rifles directing Coy Cdrs to visit fwd posts immediately to check alterness and report all OK did not himself visit the fwd post but improperly detailed JC-111310 Sub GS Panthi, the Senior JCO of the Coy for the task. Second Charge BEING AN OFFICER Army Act BEHAVING IN A MANNER Section 45 UNBECOMING HIS POSITION AND THE CHARACTER EXPECTED OF HIM. In that he, at field, between the period 14 Oct. 84 to 30 Nov. 84 drew ration for personal consumption of ₹ 930.37 (Rupees Nine hundred thirty and paise thirty seven) only from the Quartermaster 'A' Coy but did not pay for the same. Third Charge IN A TOUR DIARY Army Act MADE BY HIM KNOWINGLY Section 57(a) MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT In that he, At field, on 17 Dec. 84 while being the Officer Commanding 'A' Coy in his Tour Diary stated that he left Manigong on 20 Oct. 84 for Tadadege well knowing the said statement to be false. Fourth Charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The law on the subject is aptly set out in the case of Union of India v. Major A. Hussain reported in [1998] 1 SCC 537. This was a case where a Major had been court-martialed and dismissed from service. The High Court quashed the Court Martial and the sentence on the ground that the delinquent had been denied a reasonable opportunity to defened himself. This Court, after considering various Army Orders, Rules and Provisions of the Army Act, concluded that the Court Martial had been properly held. It was then held as follows : 23. Though court-martial proceedings are subject to judicial review by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the court-martial is not subejct to the superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. If a court-martial has been properly convened and there is no challenge to its composition and the proceedings are in accordance with the procedure prescribed, the High Court or for that matter any court must stay its hands. Proceedigs of a court-martial are not to be compared with the proceedings in a criminal court under the Code of Criminal Procedure where adjournments have become a matter of routine though that is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch a complaint the Commanding Officer had sentenced him to 28 days rigorous imprisonment. While he was serving the sentence he was served with another charge-sheet which reads as follows. Accused 1429055-M Signalman Ranjit Thakur of 4 Corps Operating Signal Regiment is charged with- Army Act Disobeying a lawful command given by Section 41(2) his superior officer In that he At 15.30 hrs on May 29, 1985 when ordered by JC 106251-P Sub Ram Singh, the orderly Officer of the same Regiment to eat his food, did not do so. On such a ridiculous charge rigorous imprisonment of one year was imposed. He was then dismissed from service, with the added disqualification of being declared unfit for any future civil employment. It was on such gross facts that this Court made the observations quoted above and held that the punishment was so strikingly disproportionate that it called for interference. The above observations are not to be taken to mean that a Court can, while exercising powers under Article 226 or 227 and/or under Article 32, interfere with the punishment because it considers the punishment to be disproportionat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submitted that 'A' Company had four forward posts. He submitted that just a few days before the receipt of the signal, the Respondent had already visited two of the forward posts viz. Tatadege and Henakar. He submitted that as the troops were already on high alert and as he had just returned back from two of the forward post the Respondent sent the JCO to check alertness in the remaining two forward posts. He further submitted that there was to be a visit, to the 'A' Company, of a VIP and the Respondent was therefore required to remain in Manigong. He submitted that for that reason also the Respondent could not personally visit the forward posts. It was further submitted that in that area, apart them 'A' Company, there were three other Companies, namely 'B', 'C' and 'D' Companies. He submitted that that the Commandants of 'C' Company and 'D' Company had also not visited the forward post after receipt of signal. He submitted that therefore the charge was not that serious and that this was the factor which was taken into consideration by both the Courts below. Mr. Sharma further submitted that even the other charges we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
