Per J.P. Singh, J.;— 1. The Respondent-Chuni Lal was convicted under Section 39 (a) of the Army Act, 1950, for absenting without leave and sentenced to, dismissal from service, by the Summary Court Martial (for brevity 'SCM'), on 16.08.2001 pursuant to his, Pleading guilty, to the Charge. He questioned his conviction and sentence invoking extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court urging non-compliance of Rule 115(2) of the Army Rules, 1954, in recording the Plea of guilty, which according to him would vitiate his trial by the SCM. 2. During the pendency of proceedings before the Writ Court, it was projected on behalf of the respondent that the Commanding Officer EME Depot Bn., holding the SCM, had taken the respondent's signatures on blank papers, and the alleged compliance of Rules in recording the Plea of guilty, was a later manipulation. The procedure laid down in Rule 115(2) was not complied with when he is reported to have pleaded guilty to the Charge. 3. In Response to the plea projected on behalf of the respondent and as directed by the Writ Court, the Union of India filed Supplementary Affidavit of Brigadier A. K. Tuli, who had conducted the SCM, in his capacity as Commanding Officer EME Depot Bn. 4. According to Brigadier Tuli, he had signed the Certificate when the respondent's plea was recorded by him, and it was for non-availability of Printed Form in terms of Rule 115(2) which was amended, that the certificate was prepared and signed on a separate paper which was subjoined to the Printed Form on which the Plea of guilty was recorded. 5. Allowing the Writ Petition, a learned Single Judge of this Court set aside respondent's conviction and sentence directing Union of India to convene SCM afresh in accordance with law, if it was advised, so to do, proceeding on the premise that the recording of Plea of guilty suffered from procedural irregularity of non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 115(2) of the Army Rules. 6. Union of India has appealed to us with a prayer for setting aside of the judgment and order delivered on respondent's Writ Petition. 7. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. 6. Union of India has appealed to us with a prayer for setting aside of the judgment and order delivered on respondent's Writ Petition. 7. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. The Writ Court has set aside respondent's conviction and sentence proceeding on the premise that compliance of Rule 115(2) having not been recorded on the Printed Form and there being a gap between the signatures of the respondent and that of the Presiding Officer of the Court on the subjoined paper on which compliance as contemplated by Rule 115(2) was recorded, a strong suspicion would convincingly sound non-compliance of the provisions of the Rules. 9. Yet another plea which appears to have weighed with the Writ Court in accepting the respondent's plea regarding non-compliance of Rule 115(2) was that the respondent had not been explained the nature of the Charge to which he is stated to have pleaded guilty and the difference in procedure which would follow consequent to the said plea, before actually recording his Plea of guilty, in that, the text of the Certificate recording compliance of Rule 115(2) was in, Past Perfect Tense. 10. Insofar as the first ground of there being stronger suspicion about the recording of Plea of guilty by the Commanding Officer is concerned, we find no good reason to support the view taken by the learned Single Judge because before entertaining suspicion and even stronger suspicion regarding recording of Plea of guilty and proceedings of SCM, learned Single Judge was required to take into consideration the provisions of Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act and the presumption attached to these proceedings, which does not appear to have been taken note of. 11. In terms of Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act, which is applicable to proceeding(s) before Court Martial as well, there is statutory presumption that- a judicial act, regularity of which is in question, was performed under exceptional circumstances. 12. Proceedings of Summary Court Martial, being judicial proceedings, and the act of the Presiding Officer, a judicial act, there was a strong presumption in favour of the regularity of the proceedings of Summary Court Martial, which, unless rebutted by strong and positive evidence, had to be presumed to have been performed in exceptional circumstances. 12. Proceedings of Summary Court Martial, being judicial proceedings, and the act of the Presiding Officer, a judicial act, there was a strong presumption in favour of the regularity of the proceedings of Summary Court Martial, which, unless rebutted by strong and positive evidence, had to be presumed to have been performed in exceptional circumstances. This apart, learned Single Judge has not taken note of the Affidavit filed by Brigadier Tuli in Response to the order of the Writ Court issued in this behalf requiring his explanation as to how the compliance of Section 115(2) was recorded on a separate piece of paper, to which Brigadier Tuli, who was the Presiding Officer when the SCM was conducted, had affirmed as follows: "Supplementary Affidavit in compliance to Order dated 22.04.2009 and 04.02.2010 passed by Hon'ble Court. May it please Your Lordships: I, Brig. Arun Tuli S/o Shri Late LS.Tuli DDG Director Zonal Recruiting (Rajasthan), Jaipur Flat No. 404, Bldg. No. D-2, Ganga Orchard, Near Army Sports Institute, Mundhava, Pune do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:- 1. That above titled writ petition is pending disposal before the Hon'ble Court. The case came to be listed before Hon'ble Court on 21.04.2009 and the argument continued on 22.04.2009 also. The record was produced as directed by the Hon'ble Court on 21.04.2009. The original record of the case has been retained by the Hon'ble Court. 2. That the point in the writ petition raised by the petitioner is that rule 115 (2) of Army Rule has not been accompanied with Whereas the authority have obtained signature forcefully on blank paper. Though para no. 16 of writ petition has been specifically denied and it is pleaded that the meaning of the charge has been explained to the petitioner to which he had pleaded guilty. It was further ascertained from the petitioner that he has understood nature of charge to which he had pleaded guilty. Proof to the affect that the Indl Understood the plea of guilty before recording the same can ascertained as the inidl had himself signed at the end of the page 'B' of the IAFD 907 (SCM Proceedings). 3. That the Hon'ble court while examining the record found that certificate of complying Army rules 115(2) is on a separate piece of paper attached with summary court martial proceedings. 3. That the Hon'ble court while examining the record found that certificate of complying Army rules 115(2) is on a separate piece of paper attached with summary court martial proceedings. The query of the Hon'ble court was why the same is not on a printed form. 4. That the certificate signed by the then commanding officer Col.(Now Brigadier) Arun Tuli is genuine certificate and duly singed by petitioner. It is submitted that due to non-availability of printed form and for certificate, the same was attached on the unprinted form. The certificate has been signed and written during the summary court martial proceedings. 5. That insertion of certificate under Army Rule 115(2) in the records of summary court martial proceedings as signed by the petitioner is specifically denied. 6. That the contents of affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge as per the records and nothing has been concealed or kept behind." 13. A perusal of Brigadier Tuli's Affidavit leaves no manner of doubt that the respondent had been explained the nature of the Charge to which he wanted to plead guilty and difference in procedure which would follow consequent to the said plea before actually recording the Plea of guilty. 14. The view taken by the learned Single Judge that there was strong suspicion about recording of respondent's Plea of Guilty particularly when there was absolutely no material to rebut the presumption and the affidavit of the Commanding Officer, cannot, therefore, be accepted. 15. The second ground on the basis whereof the learned Single Judge found that there was no compliance of Rule 115(2) before recording the Plea of guilty because the text of the compliance suggested it to have been done after the recording of Plea of guilty too is found untenable, in that, the Presiding Officer of the Court had done all that he was required to do in terms of the amendment introduced to Rule 115, in terms whereof compliance of Rule 115(2) was to be recorded in the Form prescribed under Rule 115(2A) of the Rules and had explained the general effect of the plea and the difference in procedure, which will be followed consequent to the said plea. The Summary Court Martial having recorded the Plea of guilty, in the Form prescribed under Rules, reference to Rules of grammar by the learned Single Judge, to come to a different conclusion was, therefore, unnecessary. 16. Army Rule 115(2A) which prescribes the form in which the compliance is required to be recorded in writing, is reproduced hereunder for reference. It reads thus: "Where an accused pleads "Guilty" such plea and the factum of compliance of sub-rule (2) of this rule, shall be recorded by the Court in the following manner:- "Before recording the plea of "Guilty" of the accused the court explained to the accused the meaning of the charge (s) to which he had pleaded 'Guilty" and ascertained that the accused had understood the nature of the charge(s) to which he had pleaded "Guilty". The court also informed the accused the general effect of the plea and the difference in procedure, which will be followed consequent to the said plea. The court having satisfied itself that the accused understands the charge (s) and the effect of his plea of "Guilty", accepts and records the same. The provisions of rule 115(2) are thus complied with." 17. The Commanding Officer is, therefore found to have complied with the provisions of Section 115(2) of the Rules before recording the respondent's Plea of guilty. 18. For all what has been said above, the view taken by the learned Single Judge in faulting the conviction and sentence of the respondent can not be sustained. 19. Respondent's learned counsel submitted that having put in more than fifteen years of service, respondent's dismissal from Army Service would work great hardship on him and the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge may not, in the circumstances, be interfered with because even if the Judgment and order of the learned Judge were to stay, the respondent may be entitled only to the Pensionary Benefits and not reinstatement in service. 20. We find no substance in the respondent's learned counsel's submission because having admitted his guilt for committing the offence punishable under Section 39(a) of the Army Act, for remaining absent without leave, the respondent is not entitled to the benefits which are available only to those who remain disciplined during the tenure of their service, to earn pension. 21. We find no substance in the respondent's learned counsel's submission because having admitted his guilt for committing the offence punishable under Section 39(a) of the Army Act, for remaining absent without leave, the respondent is not entitled to the benefits which are available only to those who remain disciplined during the tenure of their service, to earn pension. 21. The grounds on which the conviction and sentence of the respondent, was set aside, having been found untenable, the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 22. We, therefore, allow this Appeal, set aside the judgment and order dated 15.02.2011 of the learned Single Judge and dismiss respondent's Writ Petition SWP No. 2878/2001 but without any order as to costs.