IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on :07.05.2026 YEVALE ASHRU RAOSAHEB ...Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

. . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA PRESENT: Mr. N. K. Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Promila Nain, Senior Advocate Senior Panel counsel with Ms. Angel Walia, Advocate for the respondent-UOI.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present criminal writ petition, challenge is to the impugned order dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No. 2, Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the challenge raised to the Summary Court Martial proceedings and the punishment imposed vide order dated 18.12.2009, according to which, the petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months and dismissed from service, has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the Summary Court Martial proceedings were primarily based upon the alleged confessional statement of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner to defend himself during the proceedings and that the Tribunal erred in upholding the Summary Court Martial proceedings wherein the petitioner was held guilty only on the basis of the alleged confession made by him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Summary Court Martial proceedings were conducted in a manner causing prejudice to the petitioner, as he had apprehension against respondent No. 4, namely Col. Vikas Sharma, the Commanding Officer, who was known to the complainant- the wife of his colleague. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said Commanding Officer had extracted the confession from the petitioner and that the petitioner’s request for transfer of the proceedings to another officer was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner or his assisting lawyer to defend the petitioner during the proceeding and all these facts have gone unnoticed by the Tribunal so as to uphold such Summary Court Martial Proceedings which lead to the imposition of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months and dismissal from service.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that all the allegations raised by the petitioner are an afterthought. learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner voluntarily confessed before the competent authority in the presence of other officials and that confession was reduced into writing. The said confession was duly considered during the Summary Court Martial proceedings as well as by the Tribunal.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that during the Summary Court Martial proceedings, due opportunity was granted to the petitioner to defend himself, but he chose not to cross-examine any witness. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that even no witness was produced in defence by the petitioner. Therefore, the grievance now raised after suffering the punishment is merely an afterthought intended to escape the consequences of the findings recorded in the Summary Court Martial proceedings and the punishment imposed thereunder.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the allegations levelled against the Commanding Officer- respondent No. 4, are incorrect. It is contended that respondent No. 4 afforded due opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself, but the petitioner failed to avail the same, hence, the question of transfer of the Summary Court Martial Proceedings to any other place does not arise.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance.

8. It may be noticed that on the complaint made by the complainant i.