Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) AN order rejecting a petition presented by any person aggrieved with findings or sentence of any Court Martial, which has been confirmed should contain reasons for such rejection or not, is the main issue requires adjudication in this petition for writ.
(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner joined the Indian Army on 18.06.1984 in capacity of a Sepoy in the trade of Clerk (G/D). While serving at Station Headquarters, Bikaner as Combatant in the regular army he was tried by a General Court Martial held from 02.07.1997 to 29.09.1997. The petitioner was subjected to General Court Martial for four charges out of that he was found guilty for two and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years, to be dismissed from service and to be reduced from the ranks. The findings and sentence given by the General Court Martial stood confirmed by General Officer Commanding, 24 Infantry Division on 8th Day of December, 1997 with a direction to carry out sentence by confinement in civil prison. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the General Court Martial, duly confirmed by the confirming authority, the petitioner preferred a statutory petition as per the provisions of Sub -section (2) of Section 164 of the Army Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1950") read with Rule 210 of the Army Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1954") and para 365 of the Army Regulations. In the petition aforesaid dt. 20.01.1998, the petitioner highlighted various infirmities in General Court Martial including overstepping by the Judge advocate to the powers and duties as given under Rule 105 of the Rules of 1954. The petitioner also asserted that the findings given by the General Court Martial were not supported by any evidence. The statutory petition dt. 20.01.1998 came to be rejected by General Officer Commanding, 10 Corps on 19.06.1998 in following terms: I agree with the recommendations of the General Officer Commanding, 24 Infantry Division and direct that the petition be rejected.
(3.) A challenge is given to the proceedings of the General Court Martial, findings and sentence given by the General Court Martial, confirmation of the findings and sentence, and also to the order dt. 19.06.1998 rejecting the statutory petition submitted by the petitioner, on various grounds. It is urged that the order dt. 19.06.1998 has been passed without application of mind and as such the said order is just monumental and non -speaking. According to Counsel for the petitioner an order rejecting a post confirmation statutory petition must be a self -speaking and reasoned one. It is asserted that a substantive right i.e. of presenting a petition to the competent authority is available to any person subjected to Army Act, who considers himself aggrieved by a finding or sentence of any Court Martial which has been confirmed and such post confirmation statutory petition deserves consideration by the competent authority as per provisions of Clause (g) of regulation 365 of the Regulations for Army. According to Counsel for the petitioner the consideration of a post confirmation statutory petition must be an objective one and such objectivity can be examined by the reasons given for negativating the contentions raised by the person who has preferred the petition. To substantiate the contention, reliance is placed by Counsel for the petitioner upon various judgments including, 1986(4) SLR 791, Lt. Colonel Amal Sankar Bhadury v. Union of India and Ors.;, 2006(2) SCT 1, Hans Raj v. Union of India and Ors. and Lt. Col. N.K. Ghai v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C)3266/2005, dt. 20.02.2006.;