Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARJIT SINGH BEDI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL
Union Of India & Others
Versus
V.N. Singh
Civil Appeal No (s). 32 of 2003
Decided on : 08-04-2010
(b) Army Act, 1950 – Section 122(1)(b) – Date of knowledge of the authority competent to initiate the action will determine the question of limitation – Competent officer shall be officers in chain in command and not staff officers – Respondent being an officer commanding 4 RPD his next higher officer was GOC, Delhi Area and the competent authority was GOC-in-C Western Command – GOC Delhi Area recommended on October 19, 1994 initiation of disciplinary action against the respondent – GOC-in-C Western Command gave directions on December 3, 1994, to initiate disciplinary action against the respondent – Therefore, the date of commencement of the period of limitation for the purpose of GCM of the respondent, commenced on December 3, 1994 – GCM commenced the trial against the respondent on December 17, 1996 – Within limitation period of 3 years – No infirmity. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The respondent challenged validity of orders dated April 3, 1997, July 2, 1997, October 30, 1996, April 8, 2000 and May 15, 2000 promulgating punishments handed down by GCM and over and above claiming compensation.
The High Court has allowed the Writ Petition and quashed GCM proceedings as well as the sentence imposed upon the respondent after holding that GCM proceedings were initiated after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed by Section 122(1) (b) of the Army Act, 1950
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result:
Appeal allowed.
Judgment :-
J.M. PANCHAL, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against Judgment dated March 15, 2002 rendered by the High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. No.5451 of 1998 by which (1) the order dated October 30, 1996 invoking Section 123 of the Army Act and taking the respondent in close custody (2) the findings recorded by General Court Martial holding the respondent guilty of some of the charges and imposing punishment of forfeiture of 8 years past service of the respondent for the purposes of the pension vide order dated April 3, 1997 (3) the order dated June 14, 1997 passed by Mr. K.K. Verma, the then Major General, General Officer Commanding, 22 Infantry Division, directing the General Court Martial to reassemble in open Court at Meerut on June 28, 1997 for reconsidering its findings on the first, second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh and eighth charges levelled against the respondent and the adequacy of the sentence of forfeiture of 8 years of past service for the purpose of pension awarded to him by the General Court Martial (4) the revised order dated July 2, 1997 passed by General Court Marital adhering to its earlier findings but revoking its earlier order of sentence and imposing sentence of forfeiture of 11 years past service for the purposes of pension and severe reprimand subject to he confirmation by Major General, General Officer Commanding and (5) the communication dated April 8, 2000 addressed by Col. Dy. CDR Mr. P.K.Sharma promulgating the order of the Confirming Authority by which sentence of forfeiture of 11 years past service of the respondent for the purposes of pension, was confirmed and (6) the communication dated May 15, 2000 by DDA and QMG Mr. G.Vinod for CDR mentioning that the promulgation order carried out on May 15, 2000 was handed over to the respondent and order dated April 17, 2000 promulgating punishment of forfeiture of 8 years past service of the respondent for the purposes of pension and severe reprimand was de-promulgated and cancelled, are set aside, on the ground that trial of the respondent by Court Martial was time barred in view of the provisions of Section 122 (1)(b) of the Army Act, 1950 .
1. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under:-
The respondent i.e. Mr. V.N.Singh who was Lt. Col. was posted as Officiating Commandant in 4 Reserved Petroleum Depot (`4 RPD' for short), Delhi Cantonment. During the inspection of 4RPD, certain irregularities were noticed with regard to local purchase of the Hygiene and Chemicals in the month of May 1993. Therefore, by a letter dated May 5, 1993, the then Lt. Col. P.Oomen, who was Additional Director, Supply and Transport, Delhi area was directed by the then Brigadier Mr. K.S.Bharucha, who was holding the post of Deputy Director, Supply and Transport, Headquarters Delhi area (`DDST' for short), to carry out preliminary investigation of local purchase of Hygiene and Chemicals as well as other fuel oils and lubricant items by 4 RPD, during the year 1992- 93. Accordingly, preliminary investigation was carried out by Lt. Col. P.Oomen. On May 17, 1993 he submitted his report to Brigadier K.S.Bharucha, DDST, who in turn forwarded the report on May 27, 1993 to Major General of Army Supply Corps (`ASC' for short) Headquarters Western Command, Chandimandir. In that report, the DDST recommended closure of the case.
The Major General, ASC, Headquarters Western Command, did not consider the case appropriate for closure. He therefore, forwarded the papers to the Headquarters Western Command. The Headquarters suggested to the Major General by letter dated June 12, 1993 to seek explanation of the respondent. The Major General ASC therefore issued a show-cause notice dated June 18, 1993 to the respondent and sought his explanation on the point of procedural lapses in local purchase. The respondent in his reply dated July 6, 1993 admitted certain procedural lapses on the part of 4 RPD and regretted the same, since such lapses were due to practical problems
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.