TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Rules on Reporting Theft to Civil Police, Air Force Act Prevails</h1> The Supreme Court overturned the Tribunal's decision regarding the reporting of theft to civil police, stating that the Air Force Act and Regulations ... Punishment of dismissal of the Respondent from service and reduction of the ranks apart from sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for three months - HELD THAT:- The evidences are examined to satisfy as to whether there is any iota of evidence against the Respondent. It appears from the evidence that Corporal G.S. Mani was actively involved in the transportation of diesel barrels and loading and of loading in the civil area. Curiously no action was taken against Corporal G.S. Mani. There is no evidence on record to connect the Respondent to the offence of illegal transportation of POL. Though we are not in agreement with the Tribunal on the other issues, in view of lack of any evidence against the Respondent, we are inclined to uphold the judgment of the Tribunal. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. First Information Report (FIR) requirement.2. Court of Inquiry proceedings.3. Convening Order of District Court Martial.4. Validity of Charges 5 and 6.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:First Information Report (FIR):The Tribunal held that the loss caused by theft required reporting to the civil police under Para 804(b) of the Regulations, mandating FIR registration as per Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC). However, the Supreme Court found this interpretation unsustainable, citing that the Air Force Act, 1950, and Air Force Regulations, 1964, are special laws governing the conduct and discipline of the Air Force. The Court referenced Section 5 of the Cr.PC and the judgment in Ajmer Singh v. Union of India, which clarified that the Cr.PC does not apply to matters covered by the Air Force Act. The Court further noted that Para 804(b) of the Regulations makes reporting theft to civil police optional, not mandatory.Court of Inquiry:The Tribunal found a violation of Sub-rules (2), (6), and (7) of Rule 156 of the Air Force Rules, indicating that the Respondent was not given sufficient opportunity to defend himself. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and found that the Respondent was given an opportunity to make a statement and cross-examine witnesses but chose not to utilize it. Therefore, the Court held that there was no violation of Rule 156, and the Tribunal erred in ruling the Court of Inquiry proceedings as vitiated.Convening Order:The Tribunal held that the convening order for the District Court Martial was signed by an officer not competent to do so, violating Section 111 of the Air Force Act and Rule 43(4) of the Rules. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Rule 43(4) allows the convening order to be signed by a staff officer on behalf of the convening officer. The Court found that Group Captain A.K. Gurtu, who signed the order, was the Senior Personnel Staff Officer for the AOC-in-C and thus competent. The Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in finding the convening order unauthorized.Validity of Charges 5 and 6:The District Court Martial found the Respondent guilty of Charges 5 and 6, which involved criminal breach of trust regarding government property. The Tribunal, upon re-evaluation of the evidence, concluded that these charges were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, noting that key witnesses either failed to identify signatures, had no knowledge of the events, or provided contradictory statements. The Court observed that Corporal G.S. Mani was actively involved in the misappropriation but faced no action, and there was no concrete evidence linking the Respondent to the illegal transportation of POL. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's judgment due to the lack of evidence against the Respondent.Civil Appeal No. 7440 of 2018:The Respondent's appeal against the Tribunal's direction to pay only 50% of the arrears of salary was dismissed by the Supreme Court, which found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
