Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) This special appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 31 January 1996 on Writ Petition No. 20174 of 1986, Laxman Giri. Ex. Havaldar No. 9212544 v. Chief of the Army Staff, Army Headquarters, New Delhi and others. The petitioner Laxman Giri, a non-commissioned officer found. himself facing charges before a summary court martial for being drunk after a Bara Khana and thereafter while proceeding from the mess to the lines having grabbed the wife of Sepoy Raghav Singh and placing one hand on her mouth and with the other fondled her breast. The incident saw immediate action from the Officer Commanding, 15 Mahar Regiment to which the petitioner Laxman Giri, Havaldar was attached. The matter was investigated, summary of evidence was recorded, the petitioner was charged, tried and was sentenced to (a) reduction in rank, (b) suffer rigorous imprisonment for nine months which sentence would be carried out by confinement in civil prison and (c) dismissal from service.
(2.) Apparently, the submissions as were made on behalf of the petitioner were that for want of procedure in conformity with Section 120 of the Army Act, 1950, the entire proceedings were bad. At the very outset, this Court places on record that the learned Judge was in error in the judgment. On record of the writ petition lies a supplementary affidavit, affirmed on 5 March, 1995, which read with the record produced shows that there was full compliance of Section 120 of the Army Act read with Rule 130 and the reference, in fact, had been made as the Army Act, rules and regulations so required. The matter had been processed on a reference being made to the Judge Advocate General Department, before trial. The proceedings had been signed by Colonel. Deputy Judge Advocate General, Headquarters 10 Corps. The army had taken a decision that the matter calls for an immediate attention and, thus, without delay, the summary of evidence had been recorded. In the circumstances, this aspect of the record was not noticed by the learned Judge and to that extent the judgment is in error.
(3.) Besides, one needs to keep in mind that there are four kinds of court martial : (a) general court-martial ; (b) district court-martial; (c) summary general court-martial ; and (d) summary courts-martial. Section 108 of the Army Act, 1950. The present case is of summary court-martial which can be held by the Commanding Officer of any corps, department or detachment of the regular army. Section 116 of the Army Act. 1950. In the circumstances of the present case, trial by summary court -martia! was not out of place nor bad for lack of jurisdiction. The satisfaction whether there is or "there is no grave reason for immediate action" and whether "detriment to discipline" will be affected, an aspect mentioned in Section 120. will be of the Officer concerned. Maliciousness, mala fides and violation of the rule of natural justice is not a circumstance in issue in the present case.;