THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Writ Petition No.34234 of 2024

ORDER:

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

Aggrieved by the order dated 09.11.2023 passed in O.A.(A) No.41 of 2022 along with M.A.No.82 of 2022 by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai Circuit Bench, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri K.L.N. Raghavendra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri N. Ravi Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners had contended that the respondent was initially enrolled as Nursing Assistant in the Army Medical Corps on 25.04.1995 and subsequently, he was promoted to the rank of Havildar. While the respondent was working as Nursing Assistant at Artillery Centre, Hyderabad, the respondent was involved in a question paper leakage incident that occurred on the intervening night of 28-29^th November, 2015. A team led by Lt. Col. B.S.Shekawat has raided the Coaching Centre, Secunderabad and found the respondent there, who was instrumental in the leakage of question paper. The competent authority has granted sanction to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent on 31.05.2016. Consequently, a Summary Court Martial was initiated on 30.05.2019 and the same was concluded on 14.08.2019. Upon being found guilty in the Summary Court Martial proceedings, the respondent was imposed with a punishment of reduction by two ranks vide proceedings, dated 03.10.2020.

4. Aggrieved by the said punishment order, dated 03.10.2020, the respondent has approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. (A)No.41 of 2022 along with M.A.No.82 of 2022, challenging the punishment orders on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated belatedly, which is contrary to Section 122 of Army Act, 1950 (for short, ‘the Act’) and the Tribunal was pleased to allow the O.A. in favour of the respondent and was pleased to set aside the punishment, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners had further contended that the three (3) years of limitation prescribed under Section 122 of the Act for competition of proceedings have to be understood from the date of granting sanction by the competent authority. Admittedly, in the instant case, the competent authority has granted sanction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent on 31.05.2016 and the Summary Court Martial proceedings were initiated on 30.05.2019 i.e., well within a period of three (3) years. The Tribunal had erroneously set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the limitation period starts from the date of offence and the Summary Court Martial proceedings were not initiated within a period of three years. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners had further contended that though the Tribunal had come to a conclusion that the respondent was found guilty of the offence, it had set aside the punishment on the ground of limitation. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the order, dated 09.11.2023 passed in O.A.(A) No.41 of 2022 along with M.A.No.82 of 2022, dated 09.11.2023 by the Tribunal and allow the Writ Petition.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent had contended that Section 122 (1) (a) of the Act specifically states that within three years from the date of offence, the disciplinary proceedings have to be initiated. Admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 30.05.2019 and the same were concluded on 14.08.2019, which was contrary to Section 122 of the Act. The Tribunal has rightly set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent contrary to Section 122 of the Act. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition