D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) PLEADINGS are complete and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed off under the Rules of the Court. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against Summary Court Martial proceedings and also for quashing the minute sheet dated 16 -3 -1999. Petitioner having been enrolled in the Army was discharging the function of a Havaldar (OPR) in 129 A.D. Regiment when he was chargesheeted for two offences under Section 40(c) of the Army Act, 1950. He was tried by a Summary Court Martial and was awarded the following punishment: (a) to be reduced to the ranks; (b) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and ten days by confinement in civil prison, and (c) to be dismissed from service. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a statutory petition under Section 164(2) before the Chief of the Army Staff which was partly allowed by the order dated 16th March, 1999 and the unexpired period of imprisonment was remitted. However, all the other punishments were left in tact.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that Rule 22 of the Army Rules, 1954 was not complied with, inasmuch as, the charges were not heard by the Commanding Officer in the presence of the accused and as such the trial was vitiated. In support of his contention, he has relied upon several decisions to show that requirement of Rule 22 was mandatory. No doubt the requirement of the Rules are mandatory but it has to be seen whether the rule was complied.;