The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of procedural compliance in summary court martial proceedings, including the right to legal assistance, adherence to procedural rules, and the application of legal principles governing the offenses under the Army Act.

( 1 ) HEARD Colonel Ashok Kumar (Rtd.), advocate for the petitioner and Sri S. Banerji, advocate for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a writ, order or direction to the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. A further writ in the nature of certiorari has been prayed for summoning the records of entire case including the final result as contained in Annexure-15 and to quash the same. It has further been prayed that a direction be issued to Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the matter and order respondent No. 5 to make payment of compensation to the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are ; that the petitioner was enrolled on 25th October, 1980 and earmarked for Army Service Corps. Petitioner was posted on 6. 8. 1994 at 680 (I)/tk/tptr P1 whose Officer Commanding was Col. P. Bhatnagar. Petitioner states that on 6. 8. 1994 he was on Sentry duty on main gate at around 23 hours a civil truck bearing registration No. MP-28 E 0043 entered garage entrance gate which was across the road diagonally opposite to the main gate entrance. Petitioner finding presence of a civil truck got alarmed and after checking found that vehicle had four empty barrels of F. O. L. (Fuel Oils and lubricant ). Petitioner made inquiries and recorded statement of truck driver Jai Ram who was civilian. Petitioner states that he had informed the authorities and in the meantime Nb. Sub. Lal singh came and in his presence filled barrels were loaded and the vehicle went away. Petitioner claims that thereafter he was harassed and threatened. It was stated that a court of inquiry was held by the Commander 18 Brigade to investigate into the allegations made by the petitioner against officer commanding Lt. Col. P. Bhatnagar. Petitioner made statement before the Court of inquiry reiterating his allegations. The petitioner has submitted a complaint to the higher authorities making allegations that Officer Commanding Col. P. Bhatnagar has misappropriated eleven barrels of F. O. L. and sold it to owner of civil truck. It was further stated that Col. P. Bhatnagar has threatened the petitioner and his wife and has harassed him. It was stated that the petitioner was arrested on 2. 1. 1995. Officer Commanding decided to hold summary court martial in which proceeding summary of evidence was recorded. Petitioner has further stated that in that summary court martial, charge-sheet dated 12. 6. 1997 was given to the petitioner on 13. 6. 1997 and trial commenced on 14. 6. 1997 at 13. 15 hours. Petitioner stated that for defending himself in the summary court martial, petitioner made request for being permitted to defend himself by assistance of civil lawyer. Proceeding of summary court martial was adjourned and again proceedings took place on 16. 9. 1997. In the summary court martial, petitioner was awarded following punishments : (a) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months in civil jail, (b) to be dismissed from service.

( 4 ) PETITIONER filed statutory petition under Section 164 (2) of Army Act, 1950, which was kept pending and not decided hence the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 37038 of 1998. Ex. Sep. D/r M. Z. H. Khan v. Chief of Army Staff, which was finally disposed of by this Court by its order dated 7. 12. 1998 directing the Chief of Army Staff to consider and dispose of the petitioners statutory petition preferred under Section 164 (2) of the Army Act, 1950, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Ultimately, the chief of Army Staff passed final order on the statutory petition on 28. 5. 1999. The Chief of Army staff had set aside the finding on two charges recorded against the petitioner on technical ground. H