SUNIL KUMAR DHAKA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in this writ petition call for the setting aside of the illegal Summary Charge Trial of the Petitioner held on 19.7.1996 by his Commanding Officer. Secondly, it is prayed that the order of the Chief Naval Staff dated 12.9.1996 whereby the Petitioner was sentenced to (a) rigorous imprisonment for thirty days and (b) dismissal from Navy service to set aside. Thirdly, that the Petitioner be awarded exemplary compensation/damages for his being kept illegally in Naval custody beyond the period of rigorous imprisonment approved by the Chief of Naval Staff.

(2.) The relevant facts are that on 16.7.1996 the Petitioner had attempted to outrage the modesty of an attendant in the Intensive Care Unit, where the Petitioner was on duty. On a hue and cay being raised by the victim, Officers were summoned and the Petitioner was apprehended. A Summary Court Martial was forthwith held. The Petitioner made a confession of his guilt and expressed remorse for his actions. The Commanding Officer recommended the Petitioner's detention for ninety days as well as dismissal from Naval service. Although the Petitioner has asserted in the writ petition that the confession was not voluntary, this plea and challenge to the punishment imposed was given up as notice was issued only on the question whether the Petitioner had undergone two months imprisonment instead of thirty days. In the ordinary course I would not have referred to the incident for which he was sentenced but keeping in view the claim of the Petitioner for compensation this fact becomes material. It is material for two reasons. Firstly, because of the heinous act itself and secondly, in order to ascertain the conduct of the Petitioner subsequent thereto. Had the Petitioner not agitated the voluntary nature of the confession in the writ petition, this would have a direct bearing on the compensation, if any, to he awarded to him. If he has attempted to retract his confession, then he would disentitle himself from compensation.

(3.) The sentence of the Commanding Officer was confirmed by the Chief of Naval Staff on 12.9.1996 in respect of the dismissal .from service. As regards the sentence of detention for ninety days passed by the Commanding Officer this was altered to rigorous imprisonment for thirty days. Although in the pleadings it has been averred by the Respondents that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment would commence from the date of its pronouncement and further that since the Petitioner was released from Naval custody on 21.9.1996, there was no illegal confinement, this point was not urged in the course of arguments. In my view rightly so - since had the Respondents genuinely adhered to this opinion, the Petitioner would have been released on 11.10.1996 and not earlier. Quite obviously after some cogitation no the point, the Respondents had realised that the period of detention already undergone by the Petitioner should be counted when computing the thirty days of rigorous imprisonment. The correctness of contentions on this issue shall, therefore, be left to a decision in some other case whether it would be contested.