SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.
Union of India and others - Appellants
Versus
Bodupalli Gopalaswami - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 876, 877 of 2003
Decided on : 12-09-2011
First charge Army Act, 1950 - Section 52 – Retired from service – Contract – Evidence - On receiving complaints about irregularities in butchery, a team of three officers from Central Bureau of Investigation and two Army Officers carried out a raid/surprise inspection of butchery on prior permission of second respondent - They intercepted eleven vehicles belonging to different units returning from butchery after collecting meat and checked the meat for quality and quantity – Held, In circumstances punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of offences held to be proved - While Court may not interfere with findings of guilt, in a case of this nature having regard to nature of offences, we may consider the proportionality of punishment to find out whether it is perverse and irrational - Even accepting the said findings of guilt regarding charges it is clearly a case of shockingly disproportionate punishment being meted out to Commandant for offering an alternative interpretation to clause (86), for the lapses of his supervisory officer and for the breach committed by the contractor. In the normal course, we would have set aside punishment and referred matter back for consideration and imposition of a lesser punishment - But having regard to fact that matter is more than 20 years old and first respondent reached age of superannuation long ago no purpose would be served, by referring it back to the appellants - Court are of view on facts and circumstances interests of justice would be served if punishment of dismissal is substituted by the following punishment forfeiture of eight years of service for purpose of pension; and (b) Severe reprimand - As a consequence order forfeiting pension requires to be set aside as pension can be denied under Pension Regulation 16(a) only to officers who are cashiered, dismissed or removed from service - Role of appellant being that of an overall controlling officer of supply depot was limited and charges in so far as the first respondent were technical in nature - But for limitation of interference with regard to findings of fact in judicial review this might even be a case for interference with findings of guilt recorded - Be that as it may – Petition dismissa
JUDGMENT :
R.V. Raveendran, J.
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 :
(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 Army Act, 1950 Section 52(f) SUCH AN OFFENCE AS IS MENTIOEND IN CLAUSE (f) OF SECTION 52 OF THE ARMY ACT WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD
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 Army Act, 1950 Section 63 AN OMISSION PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND MILITARY DISCIPLINE,
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 Army Act, 1950 Section 63 AN OMISSION PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND MILITARY DISCIPLINE,
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 Army Act, 1950 Section 63 AN OMISSION PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND MILITARY DISCIPLINE,
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 A
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.