Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1052 (ALL)

Ex. Lieutenant Col. Jai Prakash v. Union of India

2004-05-14

MARKANDEY KATJU, POONAM SRIVASTAVA

body2004
ORDER M. Katju, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 11.10.1999, 25.3.2004, 4.2.2003 and 19.3.2001 Annexures-1, 2, 5 and 8 to the writ petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner entered in the service of the army and was commissioned in 1971 as a Lieutenant. He retired on 30.4.2001. While he was holding the post of Lieutenant Colonel there were certain allegations against him and a general court martial was held on several charges and he was found guilty on charges Nos. 8, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 16. He was awarded the punishment of forfeiture of four years past service for the purpose of pension and was also severely reprimanded vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner filed an appeal vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition which was rejected on 4.2.2003 vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 4. A perusal of the order dated 4.2.2003 Annexure-5 to the writ petition shows that the Central Government has confirmed the order of the army authorities taking into consideration the petitioner’s thirty years service and in fact he has awarded a minor punishment. 5. We are of the opinion that the petitioner has been dealt with leniently by the army authorities taking into account the charges on which he was found guilty. The petitioners was found guilty of placing supply orders without calling for quotations as required under the policy letter. Charge No. 7 on which he has been guilty was of improperly sanctioning stores on challan without resorting to competitive tendering. Similarly charge No. 9 on which he was also found guilty is a similar charge. Charge No. 10 on which he was found guilty is for improperly recommending procurement of stores on challan in contravention of the instructions. He was also found to have fraudulently sanctioned local purchase of stores. 6. Charges No. 14 and 15 are also serious charges. 7. These are serious charges against military discipline and reflect on the petitioner’s integrity also. The finding of guilt is a finding of fact and we cannot interfere in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was given opportunity of hearing by the army authorities. 8. This Court is extremely reluctant to interfere with army matters particularly in matters relating to disciplinary proceedings of the army authorities. The finding of guilt is a finding of fact and we cannot interfere in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was given opportunity of hearing by the army authorities. 8. This Court is extremely reluctant to interfere with army matters particularly in matters relating to disciplinary proceedings of the army authorities. It must be understood that the army has its own system of military discipline and interference by this Court in these matters is extremely prejudicial to the moral of the army. Of course this Court can interfere in some extreme cases but this case is not one in that category. Unless the army is allowed to maintain its own internal system of discipline it will not be able to discharge its duty to the nation properly. This Court should maintain judicial restraint in such matters. 9. The petition is dismissed.