IMPORTANT POINT
There are inherent limitations on jurisdiction of Apex Court and it will not be permissible to reappreciate evidence as recorded by GCM unless Apex Court finds that material factors have been either ignored or evidence that has come on record, has been appreciated in a totally erroneous manner.

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No.2169 of 2014 is filed by Union of India and others challenging the orders passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Regional Bench at Chandimandir (hereinafter referred to as the “AFT”) dated 10th October 2013 in MA No. 1871 of 2012 and OA No. 262 of 2011 to the effect that it reduces the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and cashiering imposed on the respondent hereinLt. Gen. (Retd.) S.K. Sahni to dismissal from the service as provided in Section 71(e) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “AFT Act”), and 21st March 2014 in MA Nos. 3201 and 3202 of 2014 in OA No. 262 of 2011, whereby the learned AFT refused to grant leave to appeal.

2. Transferred Case (Criminal) No. 1 of 2017 is filed by the petitioner therein (respondent herein), originally before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana being Criminal Writ Petition No. 1895 of 2013, challenging the dismissal of MA No. 1871 of 2012 and OA No. 262 of 2011, which was filed challenging the order dated 18th February 2011, passed by the General Court Martial (hereinafter referred to as the “GCM”), vide which the respondent herein was held guilty of first, third, fourth, fifth, seventh and ninth charges and was sentenced as under:

(i) To be cashiered; and

(ii) Rigorous imprisonment for three years subject to confirmation.

3. As such, both, the appeal filed by the Union of India and others, and the transferred case, filed by the respondent herein have been heard together. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Criminal Appeal No. 2169 of 2014.

4. The respondent was commissioned in the Indian Army on 16th December 1967 and earned promotions and was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant General in May 2003. The respondent was thereafter appointed as Director General, Supplies and Transport (hereinafter referred to as “DGST”) with effect from 1st February 2005. He was also awarded the “Ati Vishisht Seva Medal” in January 2005.

5. An anonymous complaint was received in the Directorate of Supplies and Transport (hereinafter referred to as the “Directorate”) on 4th April 2005. On 8th April 2005, the complaint was forwarded and a request was made to the respondent to examine the complaint and forward his comments on the file on priority for perusal of the Directorate. It is contended by the respondent that he replied to the same on 12th September 2005.

6. A Court of Inquiry was ordered against the respondent under the directions of General Officer CommandinginChief, Western Command (hereinafter referred to as “GOCinC”), to investigate into the following seven allegations:

“i. Procurement of Kabuli Chana through contract finalized during April 05 by Army Purchase Organization;

ii. Tendering and procurement of Barley crushed and Gram kibbled during financial year 20052006 by Army Purchase Organization;

iii. Testing and sampling of items of ration by CFL Delhi as per laid down specification arid its subsequent purchase/procurement from various firms/dealers as per approved sample and ASC specifications;

iv. Tendering and procurement of 979 Metric Tonnes of Masoor Whole which was supplied by GRAINFED;

v. Violation, if any, of the laid down quality norms, ASC specifications and other desired parameters with regard to moisture content, number counts per 100 gm weight, system of imposing price reduction of commodities contracted.

vi. Any undue favour granted to any contractor for procurement of meat by HQ Central Command during financial years 20032004 and 20042005

vii. Any irregularity with regard to permitting a civil contractor to dump excavated soil within the compound of ASC Centre and College of any undue favour taken from any contractor by and Army pers at ASC Centre and College.”

7. The Court of Inquiry only recommended for award of recordable censure against the respondent while recommending d