Back
2006 Supreme(UK) 256
2007 UAD 328
UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.C. Verma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal
Writ Petition No. 159 (S/B) of 2006
COL. PUNIT SETHI – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 19.05.2006
For the Appellant : Mr. Lalit Kumar, Learned Standing Counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Learned Standing Counsel
Headnote:(A) Army Rules, 1954, Rules-22, 177, 179 and Army Instruction 30/86 — Court of inquiry — Charges emerging from — Quashing of — Question of — Petitioner attached with HQ 116 Infantary Brigade in exercise of powers under Army Instruction 30/86 till finalisation of disciplinary cases pending against him at Meerut and Ambala — After such attachment petitioner sent to attend court of inquiry proceedings held against him at Meerut and Patiala — Proceedings under Rule 22 initiated after submission of court of inquiry report, which is a fact finding report — Therefore, such charges not to be quashed.
(Paras 3, 4, 5)
(B) Army Rules, 1954, Rule 22, 23 and Army Instruction 24/94 — Summary of evidence — Recording of — Order of — Quashing of — Sought on account of non-supplying of chargesheet — Rule 22 does not specifically provide for service of chargesheet before proceeding under such Rule — Instruction 24/94 provides that charge shall be read down and explained to accused — Petitioner no where stated that charges were not read out and were not explained to him — Rather it was stated that he was informed that there were total 7 charges against him, 4 out of them arose from inquiry held at Meerut and three from inquiry held at Patiala — Therefore, procedure adopted by Commanding Officer in conformity with provision of Rule 22. (Paras 8, 9, 10)
¼v½ lsuk fu;ekoyh] 1954] fu;e&22] 177] 179 rFkk lsuk vuqns'k 30@86 & dksVZ vkWQ baDok;jh ls mn~xfer vkjksi & [kf.Mr djus dk iz'u & ;kph dks dekafMax vkfQlj }kjk lsuk vuqns'k&30@86 ds vUrxZr 'kfDr iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;kph ds fo#) esjB o vEckyk esa yfEcr vuq'kklukRed ekeyksa ds vfUre fuLrkj.k rd] ,p D;w 116 bUQSUVªh fczxsM ds lkFk vVSp dj fn;k x;k & ,sls vVSpesUV ds mijkUr ;kph dks mlds fo#) esjB rFkk ifV;kyk esa gksus okyh dksVZ vkWQ baDok;jh dh dk;Zokgh esa Hkkx ysus ds fy, Hkst fn;k x;k & fu;e&22 ds vUrxZr dk;Zokgh dksVZ vkWQ baDok;jh fjiksVZ nkf[ky gksus ds ckn gh izkjEHk dh x;h & blfy, ,sls vkjksi [kf.Mr ugha fd;s tk ldrsA ¼izLrj 3] 4] 5½
¼c½ lsuk fu;ekoyh] 1954] fu;e&22] 23 ,oa lsuk vuqns'k 24@94 & lEejh vkWQ ,foMsUl & vfHkfyf[kr djus ds vkns'k dk [kf.Mr fd;k tkuk & vkjksi&i= ugha fn;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij pkgk x;k & fu;e&22 ,sls fu;e ds vUrxZr dk;Zokgh ls iwoZ vkjksi&i= iznku fd;s tkus dk fof'k"V :i ls izko/kku ugha djrk & vuqns'k 24@94 izko/kku djrk gS fd vkjksi i<+s tk,axs rFkk vfHk;qDr dks le>k, tk,axs & ;kph }kjk dgha Hkh dFku ugha fd;k x;k fd vkjksi i<+s ugha x;s rFkk mldks le>k, ugha x;s & cfYd mlus ;g dFku fd;k fd mldks lwfpr fd;k x;k fd mlds fo#) dqy 7 vkjksi Fks] ftuesa ls pkj esjB esa gq;h tk¡p esa mn~xfer gq, rFkk rhu ifV;kyk esa gq;h tk¡p esa mn~xfer gq, & blfy, dekafMax vkWfQlj }kjk viuk;h x;h izfd;k fu;e 22 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuq#i FkhA ¼izLrj 8] 9] 10½
Hon’ble P.C.Verma, J.
Hon’ble B.C.Kandpal, J.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
A) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of the certiorari to quash the charges emerging from the courts of inquiry held against the petitioner at HQ 22 Artillery Bridage at Meerut and at HQ 98 Armed Brigade at Patiala.
B) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of recording the summary of evidence passed by Respondent No. 4 against the petitioner without supplying the copy of charge sheet to the petitioner and without hearing the charge as mandatorily required vide Rule 22 of the Army Rules 1954.
C) To restrain Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 from initiating any action against the petitioner on the above charges during the pendency of this writ petition.
D) To award exemplary cost and compensation to the petitioner as against the respondents for infringement of petitioner’s Fundamental Rights as also for subjecting him to immense mental, physical and financial harassment.
E) To grant any other relief which the Court may deem fit, proper and equitable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The petitioner was granted commission as an Officer by the President of India, in the Corps Engineers of the Regular Army. The petitioner has acquired various qualifications and achievements between the years August 1981 to 2001. The petitioner was posted in the prestigious appointment of Commander Works Engineer (CWE), Ambala Cantt., where the respondent No. 5 i.e. Brigadier DC Katoch, VSM was posted as Station Commander, Ambala Cantt. The petitioner was to be sent on deputation in National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) as General Manager (Technical). Before he could move to join the NHAI, a court of inquiry was ordered against the petitioner by Head Quarter, Western Command vide their Convening Order dated 10th January, 2004 and by subsequent orders to investigate into the allegations arising against him in the complaint made by one Sri Ashwani Kumar. The petitioner has stated in para 16 to the writ petition that it appeared that the said court of inquiry had absolved the petitioner from all allegations arising from the said complaint which had been disowned by Sri Ashwani Kumar. The movement order was issued to the petitioner to join the NHAI vide movement order dated 21st February, 2004 as General Manager (Technical), with an endorsement that there was no disciplinary/vigilance/criminal inquiry pending against the petitioner. After six months from the date of his joining on deputation, the Army Headquarters while exercising its powers under Army Instruction 30/86 at the instance of GOC-in-C Western Command, vide its letter dated 27th July, 2004, ordered the petitioner’s attachment with HQ 116 Infantry Brigade till finalisation of disciplinary case pending against him. The disciplinary case was for the period when the petitioner was posted as Commander Works Engineer, Ambala Cantt. An another disciplinary case was also pending at HQ 22 Meerut, Artillery Brigade against the petitioner. The petitioner after this attachment at HQ 116 Infantry Bridage was sent to attend the court of inquiry proceedings held against him at Meerut as well as at Patiala. After publication of the inquiry pertaining to the petitioner in the court of inquiry proceedings held under Army Rules 177 and under Army Rules 179, the petitioner was sent back to HQ116 Infantry Brigade. Army Rule 177 provides that a court of inquiry is an assembly of officers or of officers and junior commissioned officers or warrant officers or non-commissioned officers directed to collect evidence, and if so required, report with regard to any matter which may be referred to them. Army Rule 179 provides that the court shall be guided by the written instructions of the authority who assembled the court. The instructions shall be full and specific and shall state the character of the information require
