JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
J.P.Singh, J.
S.K.Singh (Lt.Colonel) -Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. -Resopndent
SWP No. 832/2012
Decided On : 13-08-2012
Omission Prejudicial to Good Order and Military Discipline - Army Act Section 63 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the Tentative Charge Sheet and the Final Charge Sheet, focusing on the charges framed against the accused under Army Act Section 63 for omissions prejudicial to good order and military discipline. The court also referred to Rule 22 of the Army Rules, which permits framing of suitable charges based on the evidence disclosed during investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, Lieutenant Colonel Sanjeev Kumar Singh, faced trial before the General Court Martial on charges related to omissions prejudicial to good order and military discipline. His plea in bar to trial was disallowed, leading to the petition questioning the Final Charge Sheet and the orders passed by the General Court Martial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the additional charges framed against the petitioner on the existing facts were not barred by time and were justified based on the evidence collected during the investigation. The court also held that the orders of the General Court Martial and its findings were not erroneous, and there was no scope for judicial review.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the charges framed against the accused, the plea in bar to trial, and the availability of alternative remedies under the Army Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the justification of additional charges framed, the absence of error in the orders of the General Court Martial, and the disentitlement of the petitioner to invoke the Extra Ordinary Criminal Writ Jurisdiction without exhausting the alternative remedy under the Army Act.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the interim order dated 12.04.2012 was lifted, concluding the case.
2. His plea in bar to trial was disallowed by the General Court Martial holding that subject matter contained in Charge Nos. 1 & 3 of the Final Charge Sheet being same as the facts endorsed in the directions of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command dated 01 April, 2009 and the Tentative Charge, the charges were not time barred.
3. Questioning the Final Charge Sheet dated 07.03.2012 and the orders passed by the General Court Martial rejecting his plea in bar of trial, the petitioners case, in a nut-shell, as projected by his learned counsel, is that Charge Nos. 1 and 3 appearing in Charge Sheet dated 07 March, 2012 being not part of the Tentative Charge Sheet dated 12th April, 2010, on which the petitioner was heard by the Commanding Officer, and the directions of the General Officer Commanding-in- Chief, Western Command, his trial was un-warranted being based on No Evidence and otherwise time barred.
4. Mr. Rabstan, learned Central Government Standing Counsel submits that the Charges having been framed on the strength of the evidence collected during recording of Summary of evidence and pursuant to the directions of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command, who had found these justified after scrutinizing the evidence and the pre trial advice of the Deputy Judge Advocate General, the exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction may not be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, additionally because the petitioner had not availed of the alternative remedy prescribed under Section 164 of the Army Act before approaching the Court. Learned counsel would submit that the Charges were otherwise also justified in view of the provisions of Rule 22 of the Army Rules.
5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought by them on records. Copy of the Court Martial Proceedings and the pre trial advice of the Deputy Judge Advocate General dated 25th April, 2011 to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, 26 Infantry Division too have been perused.
6. To deal with the issues demonstrated by the learned counsel for the parties at the Bar, for and against the petitioners trial on the Charges, reference needs to be made to the Tentative Charge Sheet on which the petitioner was heard by the Commanding Officer and the Final Charge Sheet prepared by the Commanding Officer, 17 Rajput Regiment co-signed by the General Officer Commanding, 26 Infantry Division. The Tentative Charge Sheet and the Final Charge Sheet are reproduced hereunder for reference:-
TENTATIVE CHARGE SHEET
The accused, IC-54365H Lieutenant Colonel Sanjeev Kumar Singh of Central Ammunition Depot Pulgaon, attached with 17 BIHAR, an officer holding a permanent commission in the regular Army, is charged with:-
First Charge Army Act Section 63
AN OMISSION PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND MILITARY DISCIPLINE
in that he,
at Delhi, between June 2007 to February 2008 while performing the duties of Deputy Director Ordnance
Services (Technical Services) Coordination at Ordnance Services Directorate, Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) Delhi, and being concerned with the procurement process of additionalities stores for United Nations Mission Contingents Units, improperly omitted to include Last Purchase Price and Original Equipment Manufacturer rules in respect of Kirloskar 100 Kilo Volt Ampere Generator Sets and Power Cables in the concerned documents.
Second Charge Army Act Section 63
AN OMISSION PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND MILITARY DISCIPLINE
in that he,
at Delhi, between June 2007 to February 2008 while performing the duties of Deputy Director Ordnance Services (Technical Services) Coordination at Ordnance Services Directo
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.