AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1436
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt No. 2 Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in O.A. No. 32 of 2019 with M.A. No. 645 of 2019, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the said O.A. filed by the Appellant. The O.A. No. 32 of 2019 was preferred by the Appellant before the Tribunal challenging the charge-sheet dated 19.11.2018 containing three charges pertaining to the Appellant having behaved in a manner unbecoming his position and the character expected of him, Under Section 45 of the Army Act, 1950, and challenging the order dated 22.11.2018 passed by Convening Authority directing the trial of the Appellant by way of General Court Martial (GCM). 2. The short facts leading to the present appeal are that the Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he incident and take up case for discp action against the offr, as deemed fit. May I also request you to initiate the process for forthwith posting out of Col. A.K. Gupta from Delhi. With warm regards Sd/- CONFIDENTIAL Sd/-31.10.15 Sd/-31.10.15 Sd/-31/10 XV" 3. Consequent to the said letter, a Court of Inquiry was conducted by the HQ Delhi Area to investigate into the complaint made by Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh. The said Court of Inquiry was finalized on 11.11.2016 with the directions of GOC Delhi Area to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant. After the hearing of the Charge in terms of Army Rule 22, on 24.07.2017 directions were given for recording the Summary o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the trial by Court Martial was vitiated being barred by the period of limitation prescribed under the said provision. According to him the aggrieved person i.e. Col. Ramneesh Singh knew about the commission of the alleged offence when he wrote the letter on 13.08.2015 and the Convening Authority had passed the order directing the trial by the General Court Martial on 22.11.2018 i.e. three years after the letter written by Col. Ramneesh Singh. Hence the period of three years having already expired as contemplated in Section 122 of the Army Act, the Tribunal had committed an error in not quashing the order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the Convening Authority and consequently the trial proceedings. He also submitted that the charge-sheet da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tiated the departmental proceedings against the Appellant for the charges which are of serious nature, the Tribunal had rightly not interfered with the said proceedings. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant provision contained in Section 122 of the Army Act, which reads as under: 122. Period of Limitation for trial-(1) Except as provided by Sub-section (2), no trial by court-martial of any person subject to this Act for any offence shall be commenced after the expiration of a period of three years and such period shall commence- (a) on the date of the offence or, (b) where the commission of the offence was n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 45 which falls under the said Chapter states that Army officer, junior commissioner officer or warrant officer who behaves in a manner unbecoming his position and the character expected of him shall be liable to suffer punishment as prescribed therein. 9. In the instant case, having regard to the contents of the letter dated 13.08.2015 written by the aggrieved person i.e., Col. Ramneesh Singh to the concerned authority, it clearly transpires that he was aware of the alleged act of the Appellant having stolen the affection of his wife on the date of the said letter. He had specifically mentioned in the said letter that it was for bringing to the notice of the concerned authority about the Appellant's act of stealing affection o....