- (1.) The petitioner impugns the order dated 30.01.2014 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Regional Bench whereby his challenge to the findings and sentence awarded by Summary General Court Martial, has been rejected. The petitioner at the relevant time was in the rank of Lieutenant Colonel when allegations of dishonest misappropriation of various items of 14 Wireless Experimental Unit were leveled and Summary General Court Martial was convened. The petitioner was held guilty and was sentenced by way of dismissal from service as well as stoppage of pay and allowances until he would make good the sum of Rs. 69,000/-. The order was passed on 29.11.1999. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 164(2) of the Army Act, 1950 (in short, 'the Act') which was rejected and the sentence awarded to him was substantially confirmed vide order dated 17.10.2000 (Annexure P3).
(2.) The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir but on constitution of the Armed Forces Tribunal, the case was transferred to the Regional Bench at Chandigarh who vide the impugned order has dismissed the petitioner's TA.
(3.) There were two issues for consideration before the Tribunal: firstly whether or not the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Charanjit S. Gill, 2000 5 SCC 742 read with the later decision in Presiding Officer, Court of Inquiry and others v. Sunil Issar,2013 11 SCC 659 are attracted in the instant case and resultantly the Summary General Court Martial proceedings are vitiated on account of the fact that the Judge Advocate nominated as a Member was lower in rank than the petitioner? Secondly, whether the petitioner was subjected to fair trial and the evidence led before the Summary General Court Martial was sufficient to bring home his guilt?;