C. M. Nayar, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition under Article 226 of theconstitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature ofmandamus and Certiorari for directing the respondents to take back the petitionerin service by declaring the Summary Court-martial proceedings and the resultantimpugned order dated 24/11/1988, by which the petitioner was sentencedlo be reduced in the ranks, to be dismissed from service and to suffer R. I. for sixmonths as-invalid and for quashing the same. ( 2 ) THE facts, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was enrolled on 28/02/1976 and was promoted to the rank of Havildar with effect from 1/01/1984. He was posted on transfer to the Zonal Recruiting Office (for short Z. R. O.) Jabalpuron 9/09/1984 and continued to serve there till 5/08/1987. He wasthereafter posted to No. 27 Air Defence Regiment (for short 27 A. D. Regiment ). Thepetitioner was called from 27 AD Regiment on alleged attachment to HQ. ,recruiting Zone, Jabalpur where he continued till the date he was removed fromthe Army by order dated 24/11/1988, as a result of conviction by thesummary Court-martial. On reaching Jabalpur he came to know that there weresome allegations against him and impugned disciplinary proceedings were contemplated to be initiated at Head Quarter Recruiting Zone. The petitioner wasserved with the "tentative Charge Sheet" dated 22/09/1986, and the samereads as follows: TENTATIVE Charge Sheetthe accused No. 12688139w Hav/clk Mahipal Singh of Headquarters Recruiting Zone Jabalpur is charged with:-First charge : COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE. THAT IS TO SAY, (AA Sec 69) FORGERY, CONTRARY TO SECTION 465 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODEin that heat Jabalpur, on or around 16 December 85, fraudulently made an applicationfor outsider sanction for recruitment in respect of Shri Nar Singh (now No. 15351916h recruit) Narsingh of IMTR, ISTC, Jabalpur) furnishing false andfictitious details there in, with intention to obtain sanction for recruitment ofsaid Shri Nar Singh into the Army. Second Charge: COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE, THAT IS TO SAY, (AA Sec 69) FORGERY, CONTRARY TO SECTION 465 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE. in that he,at Jabalpur, on 16 December 85, fraudulently made. a false letter, bearingno. 70908/gen dated 16 December 85 purported to be originated and signedby an officer of the rank of Captain/major of 506 Army Base Workshop,jabalpur. Second Charge: COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE, THAT IS TO SAY, (AA Sec 69) FORGERY, CONTRARY TO SECTION 465 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE. in that he,at Jabalpur, on 16 December 85, fraudulently made. a false letter, bearingno. 70908/gen dated 16 December 85 purported to be originated and signedby an officer of the rank of Captain/major of 506 Army Base Workshop,jabalpur. Third Charge: COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE, THAT IS TO SAY, (AA Sec 69) FORGERY, CONTRARY TO SECTION 465 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODEin that he,at Jabalpur on 14 October 85, fraudulently made an application for outsider -sanction for recruitment in respect of Shri Prem Kumar (now No. 1535058 -recruit Prem Kumar of 4 TTRm I STC Jabalpur) furnishing false and fictitiousdetails therein with intention to obtain sanction for recruitment of said Shriprem Kumar into the Army. Fourth Charge: COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE, "that IS TO SAY, (AA Sec 69) FORGERY, CONTRARY TO SECTION 465 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE in that he, at Jabalpur on or around 22 December 85, fraudulently made an applicationfor outsider sanction for recruitment in respect of Shri Ram Kishan (nowno. 6924478x recruit Ram Kishan of AOC Centre Secunderabad) furnishingfalse and fictitious details therein, with intention to obtain recruitment of saidshri Ram Kishan into the Army. Fifth Charge : COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE. THAT IS TO SAY, (AA Sec 69) FORGERY, CONTRARY TO SECTION 465 OF THE INDIANPENAL CODEin that he,at Jabalpur on 22 December, 85, fraudulently made a false letter, bearingno-70478/inst dated 22 December 85, purported to be originated and signedby a fictitious person named Captain HN Singh of 506 Army Base Workshopjabalpur. Sixth Charge : COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE, THAT IS TO SAY (AA Sec 69) FORGERY, CONTRARY TO SECTION 465 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE in that he,at Jabalpur on or around 31 December 85, fraudulently made an applicationfor outsider sanction for recruitment in respect of Shri Raj Kumar son of Shrijagmal Singh of Village Barsana, Mohindergarh (Haryana) furnishing falseand fictitious details therein, with intention to obtain sanction for recruitmentof said Shri Raj Kumar into the Army. Seventh Charge: COMMITTING ACIVIL OFFENCE, THAT IS TO SAY, (AA Sec 69) FORGERY, CONTRARY TO SECTION 465 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODEin that he,at Jabalpur, on 31 December 85, fraudulently made a false letter bearing No. 1043/gen/ts/ dated 31 December 85 purported to be originated and signedby an officer of the rank of Lt. Seventh Charge: COMMITTING ACIVIL OFFENCE, THAT IS TO SAY, (AA Sec 69) FORGERY, CONTRARY TO SECTION 465 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODEin that he,at Jabalpur, on 31 December 85, fraudulently made a false letter bearing No. 1043/gen/ts/ dated 31 December 85 purported to be originated and signedby an officer of the rank of Lt. Col of the Grenediers Regimental Centre,jabalpur. Eighth Charge: ACCEPTING FOR HIMSELF A GRATIFICATION AS A (A A Sec 64 (e)) MOTIVE FOR PROCURING SANCTION FOR ENROLLMENTOF A PERSONin that he,at Jabalpur on or around 13 Jan 86, while working as a clerk in the Zonalrecruiting Office accepted a sum of Rs. 500. 00 (Rupees five hundred only)from Shri Nar Singh (now No. 15351916h recruit Nar Singh of IMTR, ISTC,jabalpur), a gratification as a motive for procuring the enrollment of said Shrinar Singh. Ninth Charge: ACCEPTING FOR HIMSELF A GRATIFICATION AS (AA Sec 64 (e)) A MOTIVE FOR PROCURING SANCTION FOR ENROLLMENT OF A PERSONin that he,at Jabalpur on or around in Nov-Dec 85 accepted free services of ploughingand sowing 6 acres of land belonging to his father Shri Banwari Lal from Shriram Kishan (Now No. 6924478x recruit Ram Kishan AOC Centre Secunderabad), a gratification as a motive for procuring the enrollment of said Shri Ram Kishan. Sd/- (K. S. Bhandari)COLONEL OC Troops Jabalpur Deputy Zonal Recruiting Officer22 Sep 86this charge sheet was abandoned by the respondents and no proceedingstook place in respect of the same. The second charge sheet, which substituted theoffences from Section 69 to Section 63 of the Army Act, was issued vide order dated61,1988, which also was a Tentative Charge Sheet and is reproduced as below: "tentative CHARGE SHEET The accused No. 126813 N Havildar Clerk Mahipal Singh of 27 Ad Regt (Arnritear) att to HQ Rtg Zone Jabalpur vide HQ 769 (1) AD Bde Sig No A4656 dated 02 Feb 86, is charged with:- Jabalpur AASec63 Charge 113 Jan 86 An act prejudicial to Good order and Military discipline in that he at Jabalpur, while-working as a clerk in the office of RO (HQ) Jabalpur prepared a RIC in respect of Shri Raj Kumar without ascertaining the fact that a RIC has earlier been prepared for the said candidate, after which he had been declared medically unfit. Jabalpur 10 Sep 85 to AA Sec 63 Charge II 28 Dee 85 An act prejudicial to good order and discipline, in that, he at Jabalpur, while working as a derk in the office of HQ Rtg Zone, Jabalpur helped infollowing pers in obtaining Fraudulent outsider sponsorship sanction between the period from 10 Sep 85 to 28 Dee 85:- (a) Rect Prem Kumar (b) Rect. Nar Singh (e) Rect. Ram Kishan (d) Rect. Bhoop Singh"there was no progress in respect of this charge sheet as well when thirdcharge sheet took its place. The same is dated 8/09/1988 and is filed asannexure P. 3 to the petition. This charge sheet was also not proceeded with anda communication was sent to the petitioner on 16/11/1988, which reads as follows: "trial BY SCM" You will be tried by SCM on 21/11/1988. A copy of the charge sheet and S of E recorded in your case is enclosed along with a copy ofthe part 1 order constituting the SCM. Please forward the receipt asappended below. " THE charge sheet enclosed with this Communication is Annexure P. 5 to thewrit petition and the same reads as follows:charge SHEETThe accused. No. 1268139w Havildar Clerk Mahipal Singh of 27adrect. (Amritsar) att to HO Rtg Zone, Jabalpur vide No. 769 (1) ADBde Sig No. A-4656 dated 02 Feb 88, is charged with:aasec63 Charge IJabalpur11 Dee 85. An ACT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND MILITARY DISCIPLINE in th. at he at Jabalpur while working as a clerk in the office of HQRecruiting Zone, Jabalpur helped No. 15350588n Sig/m Prem Kumar,4ttr, I STC Jabalpur of village Gomali Ki Dhani, District Mahendragarh (Haryana) in getting fraudulently enrolled at RO (HQ) Jabalpuron 11 Dec 85 by calling him from his village and keeping him at his (accused) Government Quarter for the purpose of getting enrolled inthe Army at Jabalpur. AA Sec63 Charge IIJabalpur21 Dec 85 ANACT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND MILITARY DISCIPLINE in that he at Jabalpur while working as a clerk in the office of HQRecruiting Zone, Jabalpur helped No. 15351916 H Rect Nar Singh of ITTR, I STC. Jabalpur in getting a fraudulent outsider sponsorshipsanction on 21 Dee 85 for enrolment by RO (HQ) Jabalpur. AA Sec63 Charge IIJabalpur21 Dec 85 ANACT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND MILITARY DISCIPLINE in that he at Jabalpur while working as a clerk in the office of HQRecruiting Zone, Jabalpur helped No. 15351916 H Rect Nar Singh of ITTR, I STC. Jabalpur in getting a fraudulent outsider sponsorshipsanction on 21 Dee 85 for enrolment by RO (HQ) Jabalpur. AA Sec 63 Charge IIIJabalpur28 Dee 85 ANACT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND MILITARY DISCIPLINE in that he at Jabalpur while working as a clerk in the office ofhqrecruiting Zone, Jabalpur helped No. 6924478x Sep Ram Kishan of 57mtn Div Ord Unit in getting a fraudulent outsider sponsorship sanction on 28 Dee for enrolment by RO (HQ) Jabalpur. AA Sec 57 (e) Charge IVJabalpur21 Feb 86obtaining FOR A PERSON AN ADVANTAGE BY MAKING AFALSE ENTRY IN A RECORD in that he at Jabalpur while working asa clerk to assist in preparation of Recruit s inspection Cards (RICs) atro (HQ) Jabalpur, prepared a RIC No. 11428 in respect of Shri Rajkumars/o Shri Jagmal Singh on 21 Feb 86 in his own hand writing andmade a false entry for the date on the said RIC as 13 Jan 86, for obtainingan advantage for consideration for recruitment as a fresh candidate forshri Raj Kumar, who had earlier been rejected on medical grounds on a RIC prepared with the same number 11428 on 13 Jan 86. " ( 3 ) THE reading of the charge-sheets as referred above, would indicate that thefirst charge sheet was issued to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 69 ofthe Army Act,1950, (hereinafter called "the Act"), which was subsequently amendedto Section 63 in the second, third and fourth charge sheets. In the last charge sheetof 16/11/1988, the word "tentative" was removed and it was only termedas charge sheet. The proceedings took place in respect thereof. The petitioner washeld not guilty of the third charge but was held guilty of the first, second and fourthcharges and was sentenced to six months R. I. , reduction to ranks and dismissalfrom service. The Confirming Authority by order dated 27/12/1988, furtherset aside the findings of the Summary Court-martial with regard to the secondcharge as well, and endorsed the findings in respect of other two charges. Thecentral Government vide order dated 5/04/1990, upheld the findings andsentence of Summary Court-martial (SCM) and rejected the plea of the petitioner. The Confirming Authority by order dated 27/12/1988, furtherset aside the findings of the Summary Court-martial with regard to the secondcharge as well, and endorsed the findings in respect of other two charges. Thecentral Government vide order dated 5/04/1990, upheld the findings andsentence of Summary Court-martial (SCM) and rejected the plea of the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has reiterated that the entire proceedings against him arevitiated as all the charges against him pertain to the period prior to his taking overthe duties of clerk in Recruiting office. The Court of Inquiry blamed the ZRO anddy ZRO (Brig, Col/lt. Col) for granting outsider sanction to 189 candidates asagainst permissible number of 103 and also blamed them for frequently attemptingto recruit 22 candidales, who had been earlier rejected. No action was taken againstany of these officers and the petitioner was made a scape-goat on trumped upcharges. The Counsel for the respondent has not denied that no one else, apart fromthe petitioner has been arraigned in any Court-martial proceedings in respect of thealleged incident. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has,. however, only questioned thevalidity of proceedings of the Summary Court-martial and the ultimate punishment on interpretation of law and has not made any submission on the questionsof fact, which arise in the case. The first contention, which has been raised beforeme is with regard to the lack of jurisdiction of the Summary Court-martial, interalia, for the following reasons: (A) The officer holding the trial was not the Commanding Officer (CO) ofthe petitioner as he belonged to a different Unit. Section 116 and Note5 appended to the Section is of relevance in this regard. (b) NCO or a Sepoy cannot be attached to another Unit for SCM. This isforbidden by Note 5 to Section 120 of the Act. (e) There was no valid attachment order by which the petitioner wasalleged to be attached to another Unit for the purposes of Summarycourt-martial. ( 6 ) THE second contention, which has been made, is that the petitioner wasissued "tentative Charge Sheet" in the first instance for offences under Section 69of the Army Act and Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, which was subsequentlychanged to Section 63 to vest jurisdiction in Summary Court-martial to proceedagainst the petitioner, which is not permissible in law. ( 7 ) SECTION 116 of the Act deals-with Summary Court-martial and the same isreproduced as follows: "116. ( 7 ) SECTION 116 of the Act deals-with Summary Court-martial and the same isreproduced as follows: "116. Summary Court-martial- (1) A Summary Court-martial may be heldby the commanding officer of any corps, department or detachment of theregular Army, and he shall alone constitute the Court. (2) The proceedings shall be attended throughout by two other persons whoshall be officers or junior commissioned officers or one of either, and whoshall not as such be sworn or affirmed. "note 5, which is appended to the Section in the publication, manual of Militarylaw , issued by Government of India, Ministry of Defence, reads as follows:"5. See Regulations Army para 381 for the circumstances under which a COof a different unit may hold the trial by SCM of a person subject to AA. "it is, accordingly, contended that the petitioner was transferred to another Unit forthe purpose of trial by SCM, which was neither permissible under Section 116 norby Note 5, as referred above. The only exception, which is made by Note 5, is withregard to trial of Deserters, as stated in paragraph 381 ofthe Army Regulations. Itis admitted that the petitioner was tried by the Commanding Officer of ZRO withwhom he was placed on temporary duty. Section 120 (3) of the Act also providesthat a Summary Court-martial may try any person subject to this Act and underthe command of the officer holding the Court, except an officer, junior commissioned officer or warrant officer . The explanation to this sub-clause is given innote 5 appended to the Section, which reads as follows: "5. A NCO or a sepoy cannot be attached to another unit for the purpose oftrial by SCM except as provided in Regulations Army para 381. "the petitioner ought to have been tried by the C. O. of his own Unit No. 27adregiment, as required by law and the Summary Court-martial of the petitioner forthe alleged offences is, therefore, without jurisdiction. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents has contended that the petitionerwas properly attached to Head Quarters Recruitment Zone Jabalpur and it isdenied that the petitioner was only sent on temporary duty from 27 AR Defenceregiment to which the petitioner belonged. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents has contended that the petitionerwas properly attached to Head Quarters Recruitment Zone Jabalpur and it isdenied that the petitioner was only sent on temporary duty from 27 AR Defenceregiment to which the petitioner belonged. Faced with the argument that thepetitioner could not have been tried by C. O. of another unit, as the same will beviolative of Section 116 of the Act supplemented by Note 5, the Counsel has arguedthat subsequently executive instructions were issued vide order dated 22/05/1985 and reference is made to paragraph 2 of the said office order, which has beensigned by one Brig. R. N. Batra, Officiating Additional DC Dandv for Adjutantgeneral. This plea was taken belatedly and it has not been explained as to whetherthere has been amendment to the provisions of law, referred to above, and asincorporated in the manual of Military Law . It seems that this circular was issuedto tide over a particular situation arisen out of a particular incident and cannoteliminate the statutory provisions, as contained in Section 116 and Note 5. Thevalidity of the notes appended to the statutory Rules has been explained in thejudgment of the Supreme Court in H. C. Sarin v. Union of India and others AIR 1976supreme Court 1686. Reference may be made to paragraph 21 at page 1694, whichreads as follows: "the enquiry was being conducted inaccordance with Rule 1730 of the Indianrailway Establishment Code, Volume 1. In the main body of the rule wherea procedure for holding a departmental enquiry has been provided for, thereis nothing said in relation to the engagement of a lawyer. Certain notes areappended to the rule. They seem to have been appended not on the basis ofthe executive instructions but as parts of the rule itself. One such note wasappended as note 4, which subsequently became note 3, on 25/09/1956 by the President of India who had framed Rule 1730. This note reads asfollows:"in a departmental enquiry, the accused railway officer may, if he so desires,be accompanied by another railway officer provided that the officer sonominated as the defence Counsel is approved by the competent authority toact as such, and provided also that the person so nominated shall not be aprofessional lawyer. The term professional lawyer includes those personswho-are competent to practice in a Court of law". The term professional lawyer includes those personswho-are competent to practice in a Court of law". in face of the above note, treating it as a part of the rule, the appellant was notentitled to the services of a professional lawyer. Gottwald, as it appears, wasa lawyer in name but actively in business. The. services of a professionallawyer were not necessary to cross-examine him. The fact was a simple oneas to whether he had paid money to the tune of about 24,000 D. M. to theappellant from time to time. Even if we treat the note aforesaid as one basedmerely on the executive instructions and not a part of the rule itself, we see noreason to say that/he authority was obliged not to follow the note but to goagainst it. At the most it had a discretion in the matter. The question iswhether the discretion was rightly exfercised or was it exercised so arbitrarilyas to lead to the conclusion that principles of natural justice were violatedwhen the services of a professional lawyer were not made available to theappellant. We give the answers against the appellant. " ( 9 ) I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the Summary Court-martialas conducted by CO of an outside Unit to which the petitioner did not belong and,therefore, had no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter and the trial is, accordingly,vitiated. Note 5 as appended to Section 120 further reiterates that a NCO or a Sepoycannot be attached to another unit for the purpose of trial by SCM except asprovided in Army Regulations, para 381. ( 10 ) THE next contention which has been raised is that the initial charge-sheetspecified the charges under Section 69 of the Act read with Section 465 of the Indianpenal Code and this was subsequently abandoned and the charge-sheet was issuedunder Section 63 of the Act to bring the petitioner within the purview of Summarycourt-martial. This was not permissible in law. Section 120 of the Act is cited in thisregard: "120. Powers of summary Court-martial- Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2),a summary Court-martial may try any offence punishableunder this Act. This was not permissible in law. Section 120 of the Act is cited in thisregard: "120. Powers of summary Court-martial- Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2),a summary Court-martial may try any offence punishableunder this Act. (2) When there is no grave reason for immediate action and reference canwithout detriment to discipline be made to the officer empowered toconvene a district Court-martial or on active service and summarygeneral Court-martial for the trial of the alleged offender an officerholding a summary Court-martial shall not try without such referenceany offence punishable under any of the Sections 34,37 and 69, or anyoffence against the officer holding the Court. (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A bare perusal of Sub-section (2) of Section 120 would clearly indicate that whenthere is no grave reason for immediate action and reference can without detrimentto discipline be made to the officer empowered to convene a district Court-martialor on active service a summary general Court-martial for the trial of the allegedoffender an officer holding a summary Court-martial shall not try without suchreference any offence punishable under any of. the Sections 34,37 and 69 or anyoffence against the officer hold ing the Court. It is indicative that in the present case,the charge under Section 69 was replaced by charge under Section 63 primarilywith a view to vest powers in the Authorities to proceed against the petitioner bymeans of Summary Court-martial. 11. Mr. V. K. Shali appearing for the respondents, however, has contended thatthe amendment to the charge is permissible under Rule 113 of the Army Rules,1954. This Rule reads as follows:"113. Amendment of charge- (1) At any time during the trial if it appears tothe Court that there is any mistake in the name or description of theaccused in the charge-sheet, it may amend the charge-sheet So as tocorrect that mistake. (2) If on the trial of any charge it appears to the Court at any time before ithas begun to examine the witnesses, that in the interests of justice anyaddition to, omission from, or alteration in, the charge is required, itmay amend such charge and may, after due notice to the accused,. (2) If on the trial of any charge it appears to the Court at any time before ithas begun to examine the witnesses, that in the interests of justice anyaddition to, omission from, or alteration in, the charge is required, itmay amend such charge and may, after due notice to the accused,. andwith the sanction of the officer empowered to convene a district Court-martial or on active service a Summary General Court-martial for thetrial of the accused if the amended charge requires such sanction,proceed with the trialon such amended charge. "on a closer look to the provisions of this rule, it would indicate that the amendmentcan only be made when there is any mistake in the name or description of theaccused in the charge-sheet or during the course of the trial and covers no othersituation. The Counsel has not stressed this point any further. ( 12 ) REFERENCE may be made now to the judgment of the Supreme Courtreported as Ex-Havildarratan Singh v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1992 S. C415. Basing his argument on the law settled by the Supreme Court in this case, thecounsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner would have beenentitled to a qualitative better right of defence before a Court-martial other thansummary Court-martial which was denied to him on a wrong assumption that thecase was covered by Section 63 and not by Section 69. Similar submission was madebefore the Supreme Court in the case of Ex-Havildar Ratan Singh (supra) wherethe Court interpreted the provisions of Section 120 of the Act. Paragraph 4 of thejudgment reads as follows: "the charge-sheet states that when fired upon by a group of terrorist-militants during an armed operation against them, the appellant quitted hisplace without orders from his superior officer. Section 120 of the Act statesthat subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of the Section a Summarycourt-martial may try any offence punishable under the Act, Sub-section (2)reads as follows:-" (2) When there is no grave reason for immediate action and reference canwithout detriment to discipline be made to the officer empowered to convenea district Court-martial or on active service a summary general Court-martialfor the trial of the alleged offender,an officer holding a summary Court-martial shall not try without such reference any offence punishable under anyof the Sections 34, 37 and 69, or any offence against the officer holding thecourt. "the position, thus, is that if the offence is covered by Section 34 and immediateaction for the specified reasons is not warranted, the Summary Court-martialshall not have jurisdiction to hold the trial. "similarly, in the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner is governed bythe provisions of the Act. Section 69 of the Act is of wider import whereas the scopeof Section 63 is limited. The allegations against the petitioner are of a serious naturerelating to recruitment and grant of outsider s sanction against the permissiblelimits. The record has been produced before me and I have carefully gone throughthe same. The record indicates that large number of officers, including seniorpersonnel of the ranks of Brigadier and Colonel were also held responsible foradministrative lapses with regard to irregular outsider s sponsorship sanctions. Itis conceded by learned Counsel for the respondent that no Court-martial took placein respect of these officers on the ground that some of them had already retired andan administrative action was taken against others. The petitioner was alone triedby Summary Court-martial for similar of fences. In this view of the matter, it wouldhave been more appropriate if the petitioner was proceeded against by a regularcourt-martial so that he was afforded a better right of defence. There was nowarrant and legal justification for the respondents to frame successive charge-sheets and from changing the application of Section 69 to the one under Section 63of the Act,which only indicates that the petitioner was sought to be tried bysummary Court-martial,although no such immediate action was warranted. ( 13 ) IT is not necessary to deal with any other contention of the petitioner. Theimpugned trial of the petitioner by Summary Court-martial and the decision,therefore, is without jurisdiction and has to be quashed. The writ petition, as a consequence, is allowed. The Rule is made absolute. The impugned order of punishment dated 24/11/1988, is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.