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

2013 Supreme(SC) 973

B.S.CHAUHAN, DIPAK MISRA
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Jethi – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Paras Kuhad, ASG, Mr. Jitin Chaturvedi, Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, Mr. Abhinav Mukherjee, Mr. Shalaj Mridul, Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Advocates, with him for the Appellants.
Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan, Advocate, with him for the Respondents.

Judgement Key Points

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














































































































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top