VIRENDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(DLH)-2007-3-13
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on March 01,2007

VIRENDER SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

T.S.THAKUR, J. - (1.) In this petition for a writ of mandamus, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to reinvestigate an incident that took place on 27.02.1998 in which the petitioner was allegedly beaten up by a superior army officer and also for payment of compensation in a sum of Rs. 10 lacs on account of the said incident. A mandamus directing the respondents to sanction regular pension for the petitioner and to commute the same as per the rules and regulations was also prayed for initially but has been given up before us at the time of hearing by learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the petitioner has been granted pension as per rules and regulations and that part of the same has been commuted also. In that view therefore the only issue that survives for consideration by this Court is whether there is any room for directing a fresh investigation into the incident referred to above and whether there is any case made out by the petitioner for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs less or more. The factual matrix in which the controversy arises may be set out as under:- The petitioner was working as a rifleman in 8 ASSAM FIRLES, Manipur Unit during the relevant period. He was, according to the respondents, a low medical category personnel on account of a ruptured spleen, which was later on surgically removed. On 27.02.1998, he appears to have been referred to the Regiment Medical Officer for medical examination to process his case for invalidation on the ground of his being a low medical category case. The petitioner's version is that when he approached Major A. Shukla, RMO respondent No. 4 herein for medical examination, he was mercilessly beaten by the said Officer resulting in injuries to his nose. This incident according to the petitioner has not been investigated properly although the petitioner had made a representation to the higher authorities. The petitioner had later on opted for compulsory retirement which was granted to him with full pensionary benefits.
(2.) The petitioner's grievance now is that the incident involving his physical maltreatment by Major A. Shukla should have been properly investigated and appropriate orders punishing the delinquent officer passed by the competent authority. The petitioner has also prayed for compensation for having being beaten and humiliated by a superior officer.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it is inter-alia pointed out that a Court of inquiry was conducted into the incident in the course thereof the statements of Major A. Shukla was recorded as witness No. 1 who was cross examined by the petitioner. In addition to statements of six other witnesses, the statement of the petitioner was also recorded in the course of Court of inquiry. The Court of inquiry had upon appreciation of the said evidence recorded its findings and made its recommendations. Those findings and recommendations were accepted in so far as the same proposed a warning to Major A. Shukla were concerned but since the petitioner had opted for compulsory retirement, no further disciplinary action was taken against him on the basis of recommendations made by the Court of inquiry. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondents that the incident having being properly investigated at the appropriate level, there is no room for any further investigation into the same nor is there any room for awarding any compensation to the petitioner, who had himself provoked the incident.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.