Procedural fairness is fundamental; failure to provide reasons in a disciplinary trial invalidates the findings.

JUDGEMENT

K. M. G. H. KULATUNGA, J.

1. The petitioner is a sailor attached to the Sri Lanka Navy holding the rank of Chief Petty Officer as at now. The petitioner had been charged at a Summary Trial under the Navy Act, No. 34 of 1950 , and had been found guilty. The Presiding Officer has recommended dismissal from the Navy without disgrace. This application is against the said finding and the recommendation marked P-17. The petitioner is assailing the validity of the said inquiry and seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the said finding on the following grounds:

i. the failure to give reasons for the finding of guilt and convictions; and

ii. the Summary Trial was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the procedure prescribed by the Sri Lanka Navy Order 0501 on “Boards of Inquiry and Summary Trials” (marked P-15).

Facts.

2. The petitioner has not annexed and produced the Inquiry Proceedings and/or the findings of the Summary Trial and has only produced document P-17, which is a message communicated within the Sri Lanka Navy in which certain information has been transmitted that a warrant of punishment against the petitioner had been read over to the him and also that the punishment indicated is “dismissal from SLN without disgrace.” The petitioner prayed for the calling of the entire record of the summary trial. The respondents, along with the objections, tendered a true copy of the entire proceedings, marked R-2. These proceedings contain the charge preferred, the procedure followed, and the evidence led in its totality, and upon concluding the evidence of the respective parties, the submissions made by the Prosecuting Officer and the Defending Officer are also included therein.

3. Upon the conclusion of the Prosecuting Officer’s address, the decision and opinion of the Presiding Officer of the Summary Trial is recorded. This is followed by the warrant of sentence. According to R-2, the Presiding Officer’s determination and opinion merely contains three lines and is to the effect that he had considered the preliminary investigation report and the evidence and found that these have established that the accused (the petitioner) is guilty and he had been convicted thereon.

4. The sentence, according to the warrant, is “dismissal from SLN without disgrace.” Accordingly, R-2 thus contains, in its totality, the proceedings of the Summary Trial held on 10.06.2021, which is referred to and reflected in P-17. The petitioner, by prayer (c), is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the entirety of the proceedings of the Summary Trial held on 10.06.2021. Then, by prayer (d), he is seeking the quashing of the finding of guilt as reflected in P-17, and then, by prayer (e), he is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the punishment imposed to dismiss the petitioner from the Sri Lanka Navy without disgrace as reflected in P-17. There are several other consequential remedies by way of writs of prohibition and mandamus sought by the petitioner.

5. At the outset, the learned State Counsel on behalf of the respondents did raise the preliminary objection that the punishment has already been approved by the President, and as such, this Court now has no jurisdiction in the sense that this matter is now futile. It is correct and stands to reason that when the process has moved and the recommended punishment is approved, this Court does not have jurisdiction to make any pronouncement or issue a writ in respect of the approval and the carrying out of the recommended punishment. To that extent, the petitioners, in