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

2020 Supreme(SC) 42

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. – Appellant(s)
Versus
Chandra Bhushan Yadav – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No.18830 of 2017 WITH Civil Appeal No.7440 of 2018
Decided On : 17-01-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :R. Balasubramanian, Syed Shahid Husain Rizvi, S.K. Tyagi, Rajesh Kr.Singh, Santosh Kumar Vishwakarma, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Yadav Narender Singh, Deepak Kumar, Prerit Shukla, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Vinay Kumar Garg, Yadav Narender Singh, Abhishek Singh, Ashutosh Yadav, Jagdish Parshad, Prerit Shukla, Deepak Kumar, Kunal Vajani, Lalit Kumar, Kunal Mimani, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
Provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are not applicable to court martial.
Reporting of an offence of theft to the civil police is optional.

Headnote:

(a) Defence services - Dismissal - Air Force Act is a special law conferring jurisdiction and powers on the Court Martial and prescribing the procedure for trial of offences - Provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are not applicable - Authorities not required to lodge FIR with civil police. (Para 8)

(b) Air Force Regulations - Para 804(b) - Loss of Air Force Equipment and Foodstuffs - Reporting of an offence of theft to the civil police - Optional. (Para 9)

(c) Air Force Rules, 1969 - Rule 156 - Respondent not utilizing the opportunity given to him - No violation of Rule 156. (Para 13)

(d) Air Force Rules, 1969 - Rule 43(4) - Convening of court martial - Convening order signed by Staff Officer of the AOC-in-C - No error. (Para 18)

(e) Defence service - Disciplinary proceeding - Charge of illegal transportation of POL - No evidence against respondent - Tribunal rightly decided in favour of the respondent. (Para 21)

Facts of the case:

The District Court Martial imposed a punishment of dismissal of the Respondent from service and reduction of the ranks apart from sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for three months. The Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow set aside the order of the District Court Martial.

Finding of the Court:

There is no evidence against respondent as regards illegal transportation of POL.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1. The District Court Martial imposed a punishment of dismissal of the Respondent from service and reduction of the ranks apart from sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for three months. The Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow (for short “the Tribunal”) set aside the order of the District Court Martial aggrieved by which the Union of India has filed this Appeal. The Respondent was enrolled in the Indian Air Force in the trade of Equipment Assistant on 18.01.1988. He was posted to 402 Air Force Station, Kanpur in August, 1997. The Respondent was assigned duty in Diesel and Petrol Store on 02.02.2000. Information was received from a civilian on 03.05.2000 that 7 barrels of diesel were unloaded in civil area at Pappu Ka Plot at about 1400 hrs. on 02.05.2000. The informant informed 4 Provost & Security (Unit), Air Force, Kanpur, that he saw two airmen in uniform, out of which one was of dark complexion. The informant further stated that a similar incident of unloading of barrels was observed by him on 20.04.2000 also as well.

2. A detailed report was sent by 4 Provost & Security (Unit), Air Force, Kanpur by a letter dated 10.05.2000 in which it was indicated that the Respondent-herein and Corporal G.S. Mani, Equipment Assistant were involved in taking out POL (Petrol, Oil & Lubricants) belonging to Air Force Station, Kanpur. Air-Officer-Commanding, 402 Air Force Station, Kanpur directed a Court of Inquiry to be convened. By its report dated 31.05.2000, the Court of Inquiry found that DHPP quantity of 5800 Ltrs. And petrol of 5000 Ltrs. was misappropriated by the Respondent and the then Corporal G.S. Mani, Equipment Assistant. According to the report, manipulation was done by raising gate passes for a quantity more than which was authorised by issuance of vouchers and obtaining the signature of Senior Logistic Officer on such gate passes. The said gate passes were used to take out kerosene, diesel and petrol. A second set of vouchers were prepared for the purpose of issuing gate passes when items were taken out of guard room, which were later destroyed after safe passage from the guard room. The misappropriated items were disposed in the civil area. On the basis of the said finding, the Court of Inquiry recommended following actions :

(a) Initiate strict disciplinary action against Corporal C.B. Yadav (Respondent) and others involved in the said action;

(b) To make good the loss incurred due to such action and to recover the cost of quantity DHPP 400 Ltrs. and quantity 200 Ltrs. of petrol (Rs.68,520/-).

3. An Additional Court of Inquiry was ordered to further investigate into certain other aspects not covered by the Court of Inquiry. By the Report dated 12.07.2007, the Additional Court of Inquiry found that the Respondent had prepared the gate passes in advance on some occasions. The record of the Court of Inquiry and Additional Court of Inquiry proceedings were forwarded to the Head Quarters, Maintenance Command on 26.07.2000. The Court of Inquiry proceedings were approved by the AOC-in-C, Maintenance Command, pursuant to which disciplinary action was initiated against the Respondent and others. A charge sheet was framed containing 14 charges and a hearing of charge under Rule 24 of the Air Force Rules, 1969 (for short “the Rules”) was conducted before the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief. The AOC-in-C ordered evidence to be recorded in writing. After considering the summary of evidence, the AOC-in-C found that there was insufficient evidence to sustain Charges 1 to 5 and therefore, those charges were dropped. A charge sheet containing fresh charges was issued.

4. On 27.08.2001, AOC-in-C Head Quarters, Maintenance Command convened a District Court Martial for trial of the Respondent. The District Court Martial found the Respondent guilty and imposed a punishment of dismissal from service an


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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