The court emphasized that substantial compliance with the rules and the absence of prejudice to the petitioner were crucial in upholding the validity of the Summary Court Martial proceedings.

V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner, in the present writ petition, is assailing the validity of the proceedings undertaken by way of Summary Court Martial held at No. 1 Military Training Battalion, A.M.C. Centre and School, Lucknow and the appellate order passed thereafter rejecting statutory appeal as well as supplementary appeal preferred on behalf of the Petitioner and further the consequential orders directing discharge of the Petitioner from Army with effect from 1.1.2003 consequent upon award of punishment of “reduced to ranks” by Summary Court Martial.

2. Brief background of the case, as disclosed in the writ petition, is that Petitioner was enrolled in the Army Medical Corp in the category of Ambulance Assistant as Sepoy. His Army Number has been 13954391-A. Subsequently, he was promoted to the rank of Naik/Ambulance Assistant. Service conditions of the Petitioner are governed by Army Act, 1950, Army Rules, 1954 and the Regulations framed thereunder. Petitioner submits that his carrier has been exemplary and outstanding. Petitioner had been posted as Drill instructor at No. 1 Military Training Battalion, A.M.C. Centre and School, Lucknow, and had been performing and discharging duties of training the recruits to the best of his abilities. Petitioner has submitted that he was strict disciplinarian and this conduct of his became bone of contention and had been envied by others. Petitioner submits that he had gone to Pune to undertake temporary assignment at the passing out prade at Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, and returned on 4.5.2002. Petitioner has submitted that barely after three days of his return two new recruits, namely, No. 15414758 W Recruit/G.D. Bharat Kamble and No. 15414760 Recruit/G.D. Jadho Jaibharat Sahib Rao of the Battalion of the Centre, who were in their second week of military training, were found missing from their duties at about 6.30 p.m. and the Petitioner was put to high alert. Petitioner has submitted that both the recruits escaped from duties and ran away to witness movie without permission. It has been asserted that on return from movie, both the recruits were given minor punishment, and they did not report of any indecent behaviour on the part of Petitioner or about any beating or injury to them to any superior officer/authority on 8.5.2002. On 9.5.2002, both the aforementioned recruits reported sick and made wild allegations against the conduct of the Petitioner. As the allegations levelled qua the Petitioner were relating to his character, Court of Enquiry was ordered in terms of Rule 180 of the Army Rules 1954. Petitioner has submitted that Court of enquiry assembled on 9.5.2002 and completed the enquiry on 13.5.2002. It has also been asserted that Court of enquiry also made queries, which were not concerned with the character of the Petitioner, as such to this extent queries, which were sought to be made, were without jurisdiction and had no legal implications. It has been submitted by the Petitioner that Court of Enquiry as contemplated under Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954 was ordered by Commandant of the Centre, and tentative charge-sheet was prepared on 6.6.2002 by the Commanding Officer. Based on tentative charge-sheet dated 6.6.2002,charges were required to be heard as required under Rule 22 (1) of the Army Rules, 1954. However, proceedings under Rule 22 (1) were conducted by the Commanding Officer on 6.6.2002 itself, and no specific order for dispensing with calling and hearing of witnesses in terms of Rule 22 (1) of the Army Rules, 1954 had been passed. Proceedings are alleged to have been completed on the same day, and Major Mohan Das was asked to record summary of evidences. It has been asserted that Rule 22 (1) has been violated with impunity, as no witness was produced and examined at the alleged proceedings under Rule 22 (1) of the Army Rules, 1954, and tentative charge-sheet dated 6.6.2002 ought to have been dismissed. Summary of evidence is purported to have been rec