Honble CHAUHAN, J.–This is an appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.5.97 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 358/1991 (1) by which the writ petition of the respondent-petitioner has been allowed with cost of Rs. ten thousand and quashing the order of dismissal from service and he has been allowed to be reinstated with full back wages.

(2). The respondent-petitioner joined the Indian Army as a combatant Sepoy in the trade of cook on 21.2.83 and when he was on duty on 15.8.90, some altercation took place and he became very furious and assaulted Naib Subedar Jaswant Singh by giving him a slap. Respondent-Petitioner was arrested immedia- tely after the incident and detained in military custody. A summary of evidence was recorded on 17.8.90 and he was court martialled by summary court martial on 17.9.90 awarding punishment of dismissal from service and six months rigorous imprisonment. His representation/appeal etc. were dismissed. However, his writ petition has been allowed by the judgment and order dated 28.5.97. Hence this appeal by the Union of India and others.

(3). Heard Mr. P.P. Chaudhary learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.S.K. Nanda for the respondent.

(4). In the writ petition, basically two questions were raised. Main thrust of the argument had been on non-compliance of provisions contained in R. 34(1) and R. 115(2) of the Army Rules, 1956, hereinafter called ``the Rules. It is not much in dis- pute that the said rules were not given strict adherence to, though the present appellants claim that the said rules had been substantially complied-with but it is urged that the said rules are directory and not mandatory.

Rule 34 reads as under:

``34. Warning of accused for trial.–(1) The accused before he is arrai- gned shall be informed by an officer of every charge for which he is to be tried and also that, on his giving the names of witnesses whom he desires to call in his defence, reasonable steps will be taken for procuring their attendance, and those steps shall be taken accordingly. The interval between his being so informed and his arraignment shall not be less than ninety-six hours or where the accused is on active service less than twenty-four hours.

(2) The officer at the time of so informing the accused shall give him copy of the chargesheet and shall, if necessary, read and explain to him the charges brought against him. If the accused desires to have it in a language which he understands, a translation thereof shall also be given to him.

(3) ..........................

(4) If it appears to the court that the accused is liable to be prejudiced at his trial by any non-compliance with this rule, the court shall take steps and, if necessary, adjourn to avoid the accused being so prejudiced.

(5). It has been submitted by Mr.P.P. Chaudhary learned counsel for the appellants that the cause of the respondent has not been prejudiced by non-compliance of R.34(1) and as the said rule is not mandatory and, thus, it will not vitiate the court martial proceedings and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside on this score alone. Undoubtedly, the language used therein particularly the term `shall suggests that the rule is mandatory. However, it may be urged that there is no hard and fast rule to give literal meaning in such a case and it may also be taken as `may depending upon the intention of the legislature and the context in which the piece of legislation has been passed.

(6). The simple rule of interpretation requires to give literal meaning to the provisions of the statute and nothing else unless the language of the statute itself is ambiguous and warrants a different interpretation thereof. In the case of Babua Ram and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others (2), the Honble Supreme Court has held as under:

``Therefore, when the language is clear and capable of only one meaning, anything enacted by the Legislature,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document