2001 (10) TMI 1163
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there was no breach 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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 IN A TOUR DIARY Army Act ' MADE BY HIM KNOWINGLY Section 57(a) MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT In that he, at field, on 07.01.85, while being the Officer Commanding 'A' Coy in his Tour Diary stated that he left Manigong on 26 Nov 84 for Shi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 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 also against the provisions of law. It has been rightly said that court-martial remains to a significant degree, a specialised part of overall mechanism by which the military discipline is preserved. It is for the special need for the armed forces that a person subject to Army Act is tried by court-martial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ying 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 disproportionate. It is only in extreme cases, which on their face show perversity or irrationality that there can be judicial review. Merely on compassionate grounds a Court should not interfere. We find that the lower Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal was violative of provisions of Section 72 of the Army Act, 1950. Section 72 merely p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 were not of very serious nature inasmuch as the second charge only related to non payment of a small sum of ₹ 930.37. He submitted that the third and fourth charges only related to making entries in the tour Diary maintained by the Respondent. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr. Sharma. It has to be immediately noted that the Company Command....