Back
1995 Supreme(Del) 792
High Court Of Delhi
JAGGA SINGH - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 771 of 1991
Decided On : 10/10/1995
Important Points
Subject
ARMY AND NAVY - DISMISSAL OF OFFICER
Act Referred
ARMY RULES : R.14
Headnote
ARMY ACT - SECTION 63, 64-A, 122 - RULE 14 - DISMISSAL OF OFFICER - COURT MARTIAL - LIMITATION - INEXPEDIENT OR IMPRACTICABLE - NATURAL JUSTICE - The court held that the dismissal of the petitioner, an army officer, under Section 19 of the Army Act read with Rule 14 of the Army Rules, was illegal and without jurisdiction. The court found that the army authorities had failed to follow the proper procedure prescribed under Sections 63 and 64-A of the Act, which required a court martial to be held within three years of the alleged offence. The court also found that the army authorities had failed to provide any reasons for their decision to dismiss the petitioner, and that the petitioner had been denied an opportunity to defend himself. The court held that the army authorities had violated the principles of natural justice and that the dismissal of the petitioner was therefore illegal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an army officer, was charged with various offences, including giving an unlawful command to use criminal force against a soldier, altering evidence, and tampering with records. A court of enquiry was held, and a tentative charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. However, no further action was taken for over a year. The petitioner was then issued a show cause notice, and he was eventually dismissed from service under Section 19 of the Army Act read with Rule 14 of the Army Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the army authorities had failed to follow the proper procedure prescribed under Sections 63 and 64-A of the Act, which required a court martial to be held within three years of the alleged offence. The court also found that the army authorities had failed to provide any reasons for their decision to dismiss the petitioner, and that the petitioner had been denied an opportunity to defend himself. The court held that the army authorities had violated the principles of natural justice and that the dismissal of the petitioner was therefore illegal.
Issues: 1. Whether the army authorities had followed the proper procedure prescribed under Sections 63 and 64-A of the Army Act? 2. Whether the army authorities had provided any reasons for their decision to dismiss the petitioner? 3. Whether the petitioner had been denied an opportunity to defend himself? 4. Whether the army authorities had violated the principles of natural justice?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the army authorities had failed to follow the proper procedure prescribed under Sections 63 and 64-A of the Act, which required a court martial to be held within three years of the alleged offence. The court also found that the army authorities had failed to provide any reasons for their decision to dismiss the petitioner, and that the petitioner had been denied an opportunity to defend himself. The court held that the army authorities had violated the principles of natural justice and that the dismissal of the petitioner was therefore illegal.
Final Decision: The court set aside the show cause notice dated 6th July, 1989, issued under Section 19 of the Act read with Rule 14 of the Army Rules and the impugned order dated 13th November, 1990. Directions were given to the respondent to pay back full wages and all other service benefits to the petitioner from the date he was removed from service illegally till the time he retired on superannuation. Thereafter he be given pensionary benefits or retiral benefits in accordance with law.
Jyoti Singh
( 1 ) THIS writ petition raises a very short point as to whether Army authorities could dismiss the petitioner summarily after having initiated disciplinary proceedings against him under Sections 63 and 64-A of the India Army Act. (in short the "act") i. e. after leaving taken formal cognizance of the offence by recording summary of evidence. In onder to answer this question the admitted facts are that the petitioner then Major was officiating as Officer Commanding from 6th August, 1983 to 6th September, 1983 in place of permanent incumbent having gone on annual leave. On 2nd September, 1983 a theft of 14,000. 00 look place. This amount was the undisbursed pay of unit personnel held with the Battery Havaldar Major. Theft was alleged to have been committed by Gunner Udai Singh alongwith Ex. Gunner Gian Singh Kubawat. On 5th September, 1983, Gunner Udai Singh after being tortured with third degree method confessed to have committed the theft and produced the cash hidden by him. He also furnished the names of his accomplice. On 12th September, 1983. Gunner Udai Singh was admitted in hospital on complaint of injuries having received by him at the hands of unit personnel. Gunner Udai Singh died in the Hospital on 18th September, 1983. Record of the general Hospital reveal cause of death of Udai Singh as cardiac arrest due to or on account of acute renal failure or as a consequence of multiple injuries.
( 2 ) A court of enquiry to investigate info the circumstances was held from 28th October, 1983 and an additional court of enquire was held on 27th January, 1984. On the basis of preliminary investigation a tentative charge sheet dated 27th April, 1984 was issued to the petitioner, on the basis of which the petitioner was held blame worthy by the officer commanding of 25th Infantory Division for:- (a) For giving an unlawful command to IC-39774 Y Capt. N. V. Saxena for use of criminal force against No. 13457713 Ex. Gunner Udai. Singh and No. 14355346 Gunner Gian Singh to extract confession for theft. (b) For altering certain words in the Summary of Evidence of Ex. Gunner Gian Singh to tally with the statement in the Staff Court of Inquiry. (c) For tampering/influencing of tampering of the in/out register entries showing his time of arrival in the Unit on 5th September, 1983. (d) For failure to stop the use of criminal force on late Gunner Udai Singh and Ex. Gunner Gain Singh. (e) For knowingly making a false statement initially before the Staff Court of Inquiry on 3rd November, 1983 till corrected-later on 11th November, 1983. (f) For failure to inform the CO of the use of criminal force against late Gunner Udai Singh: and Ex Gunner Gian Singh. (g) For suppressing evidence in as much as he did not produce the document purporting to the investigation carried out by Capt. D. Banerjee on 6th September, 1983.
( 3 ) THEREAFTER, no further action was taken on the said charge sheet and the matter remained dormant. However, a year after on 19th April, 1985 another tentative charge sheet was issued almost on the same grounds on. which earlier charge sheet was issued. The case was thereafter remanded for recording summary of evidence which was recorded from 19th April, 1985 to 22nd July, 1985. Petitioner declined to make any statement at the time of recording of summary of evidence. Thereafter, no action was tatke by the Army authorities for almost a year. On 31st May, 1986, the Headquarters of 24 Infantory Division issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why administrative action be not taken against him. To this the petitioner replied on 1st June, 1986 thereby controverting all the allegations levelled against him. Thereafter authorities remained silent. On 21st November, 1986 Headquarters of 24th Infantory Division issued another letter indicating that the case against petitioner and others had become time barred. The same could continue by convening a General Court martial for which the consent
