B.S.CHAUHAN, DIPAK MISRA
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Jethi – Respondent
Non-compliance with Army Rule 180, which mandates full opportunity for a person subject to the Act—whose character or military reputation is affected in a Court of Inquiry (COI)—to be present throughout the inquiry, make statements, give evidence, cross-examine witnesses affecting their character or reputation, and produce defense witnesses, results in the COI proceedings (or relevant portions thereof) being vitiated. (!) [1000540020013][1000540020024] (!) [1000540020045]
Such violation constitutes a breach of procedural safeguards and principles of natural justice, including the risk of real likelihood of bias or prejudice to the affected person, rendering the COI report unreliable as a basis for disciplinary action.[1000540020010][1000540020011] (!) [1000540020022][1000540020044][1000540020050][1000540020051]
Consequently, the COI decision and all actions taken pursuant to it (e.g., attachments or initiation of disciplinary proceedings) are set aside, with liberty granted to the authority to convene a fresh or additional COI limited to the affected aspects, comprising a different Presiding Officer and independent members not previously involved in expressing views on the matter, to afford proper opportunities for perusal of documents, examination, and cross-examination of pertinent witnesses.[1000540020005][1000540020013][1000540020025][1000540020053][1000540020054]
The proceedings before a COI are not adversarial but fact-finding in nature; however, non-compliance undermines their legitimacy and prevents their use as the sole foundation for further action.[1000540020020][1000540020022][1000540020045][1000540020053]
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
1. The legal propriety of the judgment and order dated 12.12.2012 in TA No. 38 of 2011 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Mumbai (for short 'the tribunal') setting aside the decision rendered by the Additional Court of Inquiry and consequential action taken or orders passed pursuant to the said order and directing to convene a fresh Court of Inquiry (COI) with a different Presiding Officer and other independent members, if decision is taken to proceed against the 1st respondent, is called in question in the present appeal.
2. The factual score as depicted is that on 5.8.2009, a complaint was made by one of the officers alleging irregularity in the hiring of Civil Hired Transport (CHT), which were used for the purpose of supply of ordnance stores to units spread over the country, including remotest field and high altitude area by the respondent No. 1 who holds the rank of Colonel in the Army. On the basis of a complaint, the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Pune initiated an action against the respondent No. 1 by making his attachment with HQ Sub Area on 6.8. 2009 and also convened a Board of Officers on 21.7.2009 for ascertaining the t
State v. N.S. Gnaneswaran [2013 (3) SCC 594] (relied upon) (Para 51)
Chandra Kumar Chopra v. Union of India and others [JT 2012 (5) SC 504] (Para 39)
Delhi Financial Corpn. and another v. Rajiv Anand and others [2004 (11) SCC 625] (Para 38)
G.N. Nayak v. Goa University and others [JT 2002 (1) SC 526] (Para 37)
Major G.S. Sodhi v. Union of India [JT 1991 (5) SC 55] (referred & relied upon) (Para 42)
Secretary to Government, Transport Deptt.
Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and others [JT 1987 (4) SC 93] (Para 42)
Lt. Col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi v. Union of India and others [AIR 1982 SC 1413] (Para 4)
Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow and others [1976 (3) SCC 585] (Para 29)
S. Parthasarathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1974 (3) SCC 459] (Para 35)
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [1969 (2) SCC 262] (Para 29)
Gullappalli Nageswarrao v. State of A.P. and others [AIR 1959 SC 1376] (Para 29)
Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi and others [AIR 1957 SC 425] (Para 30)
R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate
Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties Ltd. [2000 QB 451] (Para 36)
R. v. Gough [1993 AC 646] (Para 36)
Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.) Ltd. v. Lannon [1969 (1) QB 577
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.