PRITHPAL SINGH (EX HAVALDHAR CLERK) Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been reduced in rank and dismissed from service. The punishment came to be awarded to the petitioner u/s 39 (a) of the Army Act for allegedly being absent from service without leave; U/Sections 42 (c) for allegedly using insubordinate language to commandant Brig S.C. Katoch and to Dy. Commandant Col. Shashi Kanth. These punishments were awarded by a Summary court Martial on 2.9.1983. The petitioner challenges the punishment by means of this writ petition on a number of grounds. It is alleged by the petitioner that Brig. S.C. Katoch had personal disliking for him, and wanted to take revenge from him. The punishment awarded to the petitioner is due to bias harboured by the said gentleman against him. The petitioner further alleges that he was refused the right to defend himself and the punishment awarded to him is against the mandate of Army Rules. The proceedings of the summary court martial are illegal and vitiated because Lt. Col. R.S. Mehta did not record the proceedings of the Summary Court Martial which were recorded by Maj. P. Panicker who was not competent to record the same. In violation of the Army Rules Lt. Col. Mehta had refused to summon the defence witnesses desired to be produced by the petitioner. It is also averred that the Summary Court martial was conducted in contravention of the Army Act and Rules framed thereunder and the procedure contained in the said Act and the Rules was flagrantly violated and punishment was awarded to the petitioner because the authorities were biased and had prejudice against him. A detailed history of bias and alleged victimization is narrated in the petition but for the purpose of this writ petition these facts, which according to the petitioner had compelled the authorities to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner and ultimately punish the petitioner, are submitted by the petitioner by way of introduction. The respondents have appeared through Mr. ST Hussain Advocate, Respondents 4, 6 and 7 have filed the reply affidavit which was adopted by Mr. Hussain for the other respondents also. In reply to the affidavit, the petitioner has filed a detailed rejoinder. The respondents have denied the facts stated in the writ petition. Original record of the case was also produced before me by Mr. Hussain and during the course of arguments he submitted that the petitioner had pleaded guilty to the charges framed against him and had accepted his guilty even then evidence was recorded during the enquiry conducted by the Summary court Martial. The punishment awarded to the petitioner was justified.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed in J&K Light Infantry Regiment somewhere in 1968 and on the day when he was punished, he was holding the rank of Havaldar Clerk in the said regiment. The charges framed against the petitioner are reproduced here under : -

(3.) IT is not necessary for me to narrate the history of events which are put forth by the petitioner in his writ petition, because in case the trial of the petitioner is held to be bad, his punishment is to be set aside and in the event of his trial having been conducted in accordance with the procedure established by law, the punishment awarded can be justified, Learned counsel for the petitioner at the bar argued that the mandate of the Army Act and the Rules have been flagrantly violated and he was punished in violation of the guarantees contained in the Army Rules and the procedure which is laid for holding such proceedings in the Rules was also violated. Mr. Hussain on the other hand has controverted these submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and has strongly relied on the admission of plea of guilt of the petitioner recorded by Lt. Col, Mehta Decision of this petition, therefore, mainly rest as to whether procedure laid down by the Rules was followed during the Summary Court material or not,