Compliance with the Army Act and rules in conducting a Summary Court Martial and the validity of dismissal based on false information provided at the time of enrollment.

1. Gurmukh Singh, petitioner, was dismissed from Army Service pursuant to the findings and verdict recorded by a Summary Court Martial, held by the Commanding Officer 20 Bn. Sikh Regiment, on May 10, 1996.

2. The Charge on which the petitioner was tried reads thus:

"Army Act Section 44 MAKING AT THE TIME OF ENROLMENT A WILLFULLY FALSE ANSWER TO A QUESTION SET FORTH IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM OF ENROLMENT WHICH WAS PUT TO HIM BY THE ENROLLING OFFICER BEFORE WHOM HE APPEARED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING ENROLLED

In that he,

At RAMGARH CANTT on 01 Nov 94 when appeared before IC-30015X Lt Col Pradeep Sinha, an enrolling officer for the purpose of being enrolled for service in The Sikh Regiment to question put to him What is your date of birth? answered 19 Apr 76 (As per Bogus Matriculation Certificate obtained by him) whereas his actual date of birth was 19 Apr 1972, the fact he well knew.

3. The petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge and was accordingly dismissed from service.

4. The proceedings, findings and the conviction recorded by the Summary Court Martial have been questioned in this petition by the petitioner saying that his trial, and the findings of the Summary Court Martial recorded thereafter, were unwarranted, in that, neither had the petitioner been heard by the Commandant before the framing of charge nor were the proceedings conducted in his presence.

5. Referring to the violation of the Army rules by the respondents in conducting his trial, the petitioner says that no person was provided to him to assist during the trial in terms of Army Rule 129. Framing of charge after a period of two years of his enrollment too has been projected to be in violation of the rules.

6. In their response to the writ petition, the respondents have controverted the case set up by the petitioner regarding violation of the Army rules asserting that the provisions of the Army Act and rules framed thereunder had been complied with in letter and spirit in hearing the petitioner, conducting trial and providing him, his friend in terms of rule 129 of the Army rules. All those safeguards which are available to an accused in terms of Army Act and Rules framed thereunder had been provided to the petitioner thereby complying with the requirements of the law.

7. The documents placed on records by the respondents in support of the case set up in their response to the writ petition, indicate that rule 23 of the Army rules had been complied with while recording the Summary of Evidence by IC-42388 X Major G. Vinod on the orders of IC-31695P Colonel Abhay Ranjan, Commanding Officer, 20 SIKH. The petitioner had declined to cross-examine the witnesses who had been examined while recording of Summary of Evidence. Petitioners presence is shown to have been recorded in the records of the respondents. A receipt signed by the petitioner evidencing receipt of the documents by him prior to his trial by the Summary Court Martial too forms part of the records. Petitioner has signed his plea of guilty and the certificate issued by the Commandant in this respect reveals that the court had explained the petitioner the meaning of the charge to which he had pleaded guilty after ascertaining that the petitioner had understood the charge to which he had pleaded guilty. The certificate issued by the Commandant indicates that the petitioner had been informed of the general effect of the plea and the difference in procedure which will be followed consequent to the said plea. It is only after certifying himself that the accused had admitted the charge and understood the effect of his pleading guilty that the court had recorded the compliance of Army rule 115 (2). Another document placed on records by the respondents reveals that the Commanding Officer had accepted the petitioners request and provided him the services of IC-52091K-Captain Sushim Bishwas as his Friend during the trial. This friend of the accused is shown to have attended the trial too.

8. Petitioner has not placed any materia

Click Here to Read the rest of this document