Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 64532
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 15.07.2025 Delivered on : 18.08.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN W.P. No.33446 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.36228 of 2024
1.The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Union of India, South Block, Post DHO Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110 011.
2.The Chief of the Naval Staff, Integrated HQs of MoD (Navy)
New Delhi-110 011.
3.The Flag Officer Commanding in Chief Headquarters, Western Naval Command Sahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai - 400 001.
4.The Flag Officer, Naval Aviation Headquarters, INS Gomantak, Vasco-Da-Gama, Goa-403 802.
5.The Commanding Officer, Indian Naval Ship HANSA Dabolim, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa-403 801. .. Petitioners Vs.
Ex MCEAA-II Amit Dhull, S.No.197826 F S/o. Ranbir Singh Dhull, Door No.7/96, Plot No.07, LIC Colony, Papayyarajupalem, PO Sujathanagar, Visakhapatnam-530 051 (AP) .. Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to order dated 28.04.2023 passed in OA(Appeal) No.145 of 2017 on the file of the Hon'ble Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai Circuit Bench at Hyderabad and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General of India for M/s.A.R.Sakthivel For Respondent(s): Dr.Prabhakar Mishra
Judicial review of Court Martial findings is limited to procedural issues, with findings upheld unless proven perverse. Dismissal for misconduct was affirmed as legitimate and proportionate under the Navy Act.
Headnote:(A) Navy Act, 1957 - Sections 55
(B) and 60(a) - Court Martial - Respondent found guilty of signing a false Inspection Note for rejected aircraft parts - Petition against Tribunal's order converting dismissal to discharge with benefits - Court found dismissal within statutory limits and proportionate to gravity of offence. (Paras 1-42)
(B) Judicial Review - Judicial review of Court Martial proceedings restricted to procedural irregularities - Courts do not sit in appeal over findings of fact unless perverse. (Paras 39-40)
Facts of the case:
Ex MCEAA-II was dismissed from Naval Service for signing an Inspection Note without ensuring accuracy concerning aircraft parts known to be rejected, participated in Court Martial proceedings, later challenged the Tribunal's order converting his dismissal to discharge. (Paras 2-5)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal erred in substituting dismissal for discharge; Court Martial proceedings were valid. (Paras 36-41)
Issues: Whether the Tribunal's conversion of dismissal to discharge was legally tenable and whether the punishment was proportionate. (Paras 36-41)
Ratio Decidendi: Court Martial's findings were supported by cogent evidence; threshold for credible evidence in military justice is high, judicial review is confined to procedural adherence. (Paras 39-41)
Result: Writ Petition allowed; Tribunal's order quashed, Court Martial's order upheld.
ORDER
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
The unsuccessful respondents / Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, Union of India and others have preferred this writ petition, challenging the order dated 28.04.2023 passed in OA(Appeal) No.145 of 2017 on the file of the Armed Forces Tribunal [in short "Tribunal"], Regional Bench, Chennai Circuit Bench at Hyderabad.
2. The respondent, namely Ex MCEAA-II Amit Dhull was tried before the Court Martial for two offences under the Navy Act, 1957 [in short "Act"]. The first charge under Section 55 (B) of the Act pertains to signing a certificate relating to aircraft spare parts / materials without ensuring its accuracy. The second charge under Section 60 (a) of the Act relates to knowingly making or signing a false official document. The Court Martial conducted the proceedings in consonance with the and the Regulations framed thereunder. The respondent has participated in the Court Martial proceedings. Finally, the Court Martial has passed an order dated 10.09.2014, wherein it has been held as follows:
"THE COURT HAVING FOUND THE ACCUSED AMIT DHULL MCEAA II 197826-F, INDIAN NAVY, INDIAN NAVAL SHIP HANSA, GUILTY OF CHARGE 1, 2 AND NOT GUILTY OF CHARGE 3, ADJUDGES THE SAID AMIT DHULL, MCEAA II 197826-F TO BE DISMISSED FROM NAVAL SERVICE AND TO SUFFER ALL CONSEQUENTIAL PENALTIES INVOLVED, TO DATE."
3. Aggrieved by the order of the Court Martial, the respondent has preferred an appeal in OA(Appeal) No.145 of 2017, challenging the findings of sentence awarded by the Court Martial on 10.09.2014 and also the order passed by the Chief of Naval Staff, Integrated HQs of MoD(Navy), New Delhi in Order No.NL/1601 dated 19.03.2015, confirming the order of the Court Martial maintaining the findings and sentence awarded in the Court Martial and grant him retirement and financial benefits or in the alternative to convert dismissal into discharge from Naval service and to grant all the financial and service benefits appended to a discharged ex-sailor and also grant him a status of Ex- Servicemen retired from Naval Service.
4. The Tribunal, vide order dated 28.04.2023, concluded that the punishment of Dismissal awarded to the respondent be converted to Discharge from Service with effect from 10.09.2014 and the respondent be granted all pensionary benefits with effect from the date of discharge and the petitioners are directed to pay the pensionary benefits with effect from 10.09.2014 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, failing which the arrears will carry 8% interest per annum from the date of that order. Before the Tribunal, the learned Senior Counsel appeared for the official respondents made an oral prayer to grant leave to appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the same was denied.
5. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Court Martial proceedings were conducted in strict compliance with the Navy Act, 1957 and the Regulations framed thereunder and the respondent was afforded full opportunity to defend himself to cross examine the witnesses. The key witnesses before the Court Martial, namely PW3, PW4, PW6 and PW7 have categorically deposed that the respondent was not designated or qualified to inspect the Sea Harrier aircraft spares. It was further established that RAQAS (Goa) lacked facilities to test the subject items and that no superior officer had directed the respondent to sign the Inspection Note. The grave aspect of the case before the Court Martial is the the presence signature of PW4 - Cdr Sobers Abhraham on the Inspection Note. PW4 in his cross examination categorically denied having signed the document and deposed that the signature attributed to him was not his. Therefore, it was established that the Inspection Note was not only unauthorised but also contained a forged endorsement. The respondent prepared and signed the Inspection Note and affixed his own QAS stamp. The presence of a for
