Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 507 (HP)

Ranjit Singh v. Union of India

2012-09-05

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2012
JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings and findings of the Summary Court Marshal and the punishment imposed upon him. 2. Penalty imposed on the petitioner was (a) reduced to the ranks; (b) three months RI in Military Custody. The petitioner was tried for offences of assaulting Officers Lt.Mridul Raj, Ltd.Mohammad Manjoor and Lt.Sameer Sharma on the Allahabad Railway Station. The complete record of the Court Marshal, that is summary of evidence, has been filed as Annexure P-5. A number of grounds have been pleaded/urged pointing out to the irregularities committed in the Court Marshal, one being that the trial was vitiated by the fact since the Presiding Officer was biased. The petitioner was discharged from service on 19th January, 2001 vide Annexure P-4. 3. Earlier CWP No.1680 of 2002 had been filed in this Court which was disposed of on 30.4.2007 with the direction that the petitioner can challenge the purported illegality in the Court Marshal proceedings inter alia on the ground of violation of Section 130 of the Army Act and Rules 107 and 124 of the Army Rules. This Court held that there was no factual foundation therein in the petition and it would be open to the petitioner to file a fresh petition in accordance with law laying down the foundation for challenge. The present petition has been filed urging these points. What I find is that the grounds pleaded are not supported by any law and cannot be entertained by this Court. 4. In reply preferred by the respondents, it has been averred that the petitioner was serving in the Punjab Regiment since 1978. On 19th February, 2000, while he was travelling in 8101 UP-Tatamuri Express at Allahabad Railway Station, the petitioner assaulted Lt.Mridul Raj, who alongwith Ltd.Sameer Sharma and Lt.Mohd.Manjur was taking Sep.Davinder Singh of Punjab Regiment in Movemnent Control Office (MCO) Allahabad. It is pleaded that at that relevant point of time, the petitioner punched Lt.Sameer Sharma and used abusive language against the other Officers. The matter was reported to Squadron Leader L.Joseph, Officer-in-Charge MCO, Allahabad, who ordered the petitioner to de-board from the train so that the matter could be investigated. He refused to do so and threatened the MCO, pushed him and warned him not to touch his luggage as he was on duty. The matter was reported to Squadron Leader L.Joseph, Officer-in-Charge MCO, Allahabad, who ordered the petitioner to de-board from the train so that the matter could be investigated. He refused to do so and threatened the MCO, pushed him and warned him not to touch his luggage as he was on duty. It was for these reasons that Summary Court Marshal holds that the offence is serious touching the very foundation of the discipline of the army and he was punished accordingly. 5. A number of submissions have been made by learned counsel for the petitioner before me primarily being the violation of the principles of natural justice when his petition was rejected vide Annexure P7 by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief (GOC-in- C), Central Command, who recorded that he was in agreement with the recommendations of the Officiating General Officer Commanding, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Orissa Area and considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner who had assaulted three commissioned officers on the Railway Station, there was no illegality either in the sentence as imposed or the quantum of sentence. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find that there is any merit in this petition for the reasons that the ground of violation of Section 130 of the Army Act, as raised, cannot be accepted as there is no foundation in law. Having considered the record of the Court Marshal, I do not find any illegality in the nature of any prejudice having been caused to the petitioner who has been given full opportunity of defending himself. There is, thus, no merit in this petition which is dismissed. I may add that the Army is a disciplined force and requires strict adherence to discipline. 7. Submission was made on behalf of the petitioner by learned counsel that the petitioner already having undergone three months of incarceration in Military Custody, reduction in ranks causes serious financial prejudice to the petitioner. He submits that his pensionary and other benefits are affected. It will be open to the petitioner to represent to the appropriate authority in accordance with law and should such representation, if any be filed, it may be considered by that authority in accordance with law. Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.