TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (7) TMI 673
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ein) was allowed and the judgment and order dated 07.08.1997 of a learned Single Judge, allowing the Writ Petition (C.O. No.12843 (W) No.1991) filed by the appellant, was set aside. 3. The appellant filed writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta for setting aside the order of discharge from the Army Service passed by the Commander, 33 Corps Artillery Brigade (respondent No.5 in the present appeal) who was competent authority under Rule 13 of the Army Rules 1954. 4. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition inter alia on the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been followed by the competent authority while passing the order of discharge. 5. The respondents then preferred writ appeal before the Division....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....87 MT Gas through BPLs and Kerbside Pump, kept by Dvr. Gde 11 Ramakant Prasad of A Coy 5033 ASC Bn (MT). The appellant later on deposited Rs. 5,200/- out of Rs. 12,500/-. 8. The court of inquiry was completed and on 24.08.1988 the enquiry report was submitted to the competent authority. 9. The appellant, having been found guilty of prejudicial act to good order and military discipline, was charged under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950 [for short the Army Act]. On 08.08.1989, Major H. S. Dhillon, Presiding Officer, Summary of Evidence, sent a letter to the appellant and LDC J.P. Singh directing them to be present on 9th August, 1989 at 1000 Hrs. for recording summary evidence. The evidence was collected by the court of inquiry against....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant was accordingly dismissed. 11. Hence, this appeal by the appellant. 12. Capt. K. S. Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, argued as a question of law that the order of removing the appellant from service was vitiated being contrary to Section 63 of the Army Act, which provides for imposing any kind of punishment only after conviction by court-martial. He contended that the proceedings of the court of inquiry have been used as evidence against the appellant contrary to Rule 12 of the Army Rules, 1954 [hereinafter referred to as the Army Rules] as no discharge certificate required to be furnished under the provisions of Section 23 of the Army Act was prepared and sent to the appellant. 13. It was argued for the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered under Rule 13 of the Army Rules has passed the order of discharge simpliciter under Section 22 of the Army Act and Section 20 appears to have been wrongly mentioned by the authority in the order of discharge. 15. We have given our thoughtful and anxious consideration to the respective contentions of the parties and have perused the entire material on record. 16. It is an admitted case of the parties that the appellant is governed by the provisions of the Army Act and the Army Rules framed thereunder. The scheme of the Army Act is fairly clear. Chapter IV of the Act deals with Conditions of Service of persons subject to the Army Act. 17. Section 20 of the Act deals with dismissal, removal or reduction by the Chief of the Army S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der of discharge came to be passed. We are, however, satisfied on the material placed before us that the court of inquiry was formed under Rule 177 of the Army Rules and the purpose of court of inquiry was to collect the evidence for the information of superior officers to make up their mind about the involvement of the appellant and the other army officials in the racket of clandestine sale of petrol. In the court of inquiry, the appellant was heard and was given proper and adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, which he did not choose to avail. The respondents, in Para 20 of the counter affidavit filed in opposition to the writ petition before the High Court, have made categorical statement that in the court of inquiry the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hus, quoting of wrong provision of Section 20 in the order of discharge of the appellant by the competent authority does not take away the jurisdiction of the authority under Section 22 of the Army Act. Therefore, the order of discharge of the appellant from the army service cannot be vitiated on this sole ground as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. A plain reading of the order of discharge shows that it is an order of termination of service simpliciter without casting or attaching any stigma to the conduct of the appellant, therefore the said order cannot be termed to be punitive in nature or prejudicial to the future employment of the appellant in getting employment in civil service. Thus, the contention of the learned c....