SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 895

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 876 of 2003
Bodupalli Gopalaswami
v.
Union of India & Ors.
And
Union of India & Ors.
Vs.
Bodupalli Gopalaswami
Criminal Appeal No. 876, 877 of 2003, Crl. W.P. No. 1797 of 1997
Decided On : 12 September, 2011

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Mr. B.K. Prasad (for Mr. B.V. Balaram Das), Advocates, with him for the Appellant(s).
Mr. Y. Rajagopala Rao, Mr. R. Balasubramanyam, Mr. Y. Ramesh, Mrs. Sureshta Bagga, Advocates, for the Respondent(s).

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Army Act - Section 71 - Rule 16 – Offence of punishment – Fraud - Charge-sheet - Receiving complaints about irregularities in butchery team of three officers from Central Bureau of Investigation and two Army Officers carried out raid surprise inspection of butchery on with prior permission of second respondent - They intercepted eleven vehicles belonging to different units returning from butchery after collecting meat and checked meat for quality and quantity - They also inspected butchery - Report of Inspection Team disclosed certain irregularities in quality of dressed meat supplied by contractor which were being issued to indenting units maintenance of live stock and supervision - As consequence officials of Butchery were all separately charge-sheeted – Held, Even accepting said findings of guilt regarding charges it is clearly case of shockingly disproportionate punishment being meted out to Commandant for offering an alternative interpretation to clause for lapses of his supervisory officer and for breach committed by contractor - In normal course court would have set aside punishment and referred matter back for consideration and imposition of lesser punishment - But having regard to fact that matter is more than years old and first respondent reached age of superannuation long ago no purpose would be served by referring it back to appellants - Court are view on facts and circumstances interests of justice would be served if punishment of dismissal is substituted by following punishment forfeiture of eight years of service for purpose of pension Severe reprimand As consequence order forfeiting pension requires tobe set aside as pension can be denied Pension Regulation officers who are cashiered dismissed or removed from service – Order accordingly

JUDGMENT

R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

1. As the ranks of parties in the two appeals are different, for convenience, we will refer to the parties by their ranks in Criminal Appeal No.876/2003.

2. The first respondent was the officiating Commandant and later the Commandant of 227 Company ASC (Supply) Type `G', Ambala Cantonment (hereinafter referred to as the `Supply Depot') from 19.10.1988 to 26.6.1990. The supply depot had three sections - Dry Rations, Fresh Rations and Butchery. The appellant as the Commandant was in overall charge of the supply depot. As per the standard operative procedure for the Butchery, the following staff were detailed for operation:

(i) Supervisory Officer - Cap. P. S. Malhotra

(ii) Veterinary Officer - Lt. Col. G. S. Srivastava

(iii) J.C.O. in-charge - Sub. G. L. Kalra

(iv) NCO in-charge - Havaldar Clerk D. L. Prasad

3. On receiving complaints about irregularities in the butchery, a team of three officers from the Central Bureau of Investigation and two Army Officers carried out a raid/surprise inspection of the butchery on 14.2.1990, with the prior permission of the second respondent. They intercepted eleven vehicles belonging to different units returning from butchery after collecting meat and checked the meat for quality and quantity. They also inspected the butchery. The Report of the Inspection Team disclosed certain irregularities in the quality of the dressed meat supplied by the contractor, (which were being issued to the indenting units), maintenance of live stock and supervision. As a consequence, the officials of the Butchery were all separately charge-sheeted.

4. The first respondent, who was the Commandant of the Supply Depot was also issued a charge-sheet dated 30.12.1992 containing the following charges:

First charge SUCH AN OFFENCE AS IS MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (f) OF SECTION 52

Army Act OF THE ARMY ACT WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD,

Section 52(f)

In that he, at Ambala Cantonment, on 14 Feb.1990, while Commanding 27 Company Supply (ASC), being contract operating officer for meat dressed, with intent to defraud caused the acceptance of meat from the contractor with heart as part of meat, well knowing that the same was not acceptable part of carcasses as per para 86 of Special Condition of the Contract deed for the period from 1st May 1989 to 31st March, 1990, concerning meat supply at Ambala.

Second charge AN OMISSION PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND MILITARY Army Act DISCIPLINE, Section 63 In that he, at Ambala Cantonment, on 14 February 1990, while Commanding 27 Company Supply (ASC), having visited butchery of the said company at the time of inspection of carcasses by the Veterinary Officer and having found the carcasses dribbling with water, failed to ensure that wet meat dribbling with water is not issued to the Units, contrary to para 14(j) of Headquarters PH and HP area Shimla (ST Branch) Technical Instruction dated 30th November, 1989.

Third charge AN OMISSION PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND MILITARY Army Act DISCIPLINE, Section 63 In that he, at Ambala Cantonment, during the period from 26th February 1990 to 8th March 1990 while Commanding 27 Company Supply (ASC) failed to ensure that stock of reserve animals was maintained in the butchery of the said company as per para 51(a) of Special Condition of the Contract deed for the period from 1st May 1989 to 31st March 1990, consequently no animals were held in reserve in the said butchery during that period.

Fourth charge AN OMISSION PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND MILITARY Army Act DISCIPLINE, Section 63 In that he, at Ambala Cantonment, during the period from 11th March 1990 to 22nd March 1990, while Commanding 27 Company supply (ASC), failed to ensure that stock of reserve animals was maintained in the butchery of the said company as per para 51(a) of Special Conditions of the Contract deed for the period from 1st May, 1989 to 31st March, 1990, consequently no animals were held in reserve in the said butchery during that period.

Fifth charge AN OMISSION PREJUDICIAL








































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top