KHEM SINGH Vs. UOI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a direction for quashing an order dated 1.8.2008 and a further order dated 13.09.2011 complaining that both of them are arbitrary and were made without application of mind.

(2.) The petitioner joined the Army on 28.12.1987. He was posted with the 6th Battalion Kumaon Regiment on completion of his basic military training. He was apparently promoted to the rank of Hawaldar on 14.02.2004. The petitioner was alleged to have committed an act of misconduct inasmuch as on 24.06.2008, he had an altercation with another Army personnel, who was in-charge of the Mechanical Transport Platoon of the incoming unit, on transfer, and with a view to settling scores was implicated for shortage of 70 Litres of Petrol and 90 Litres of Kerosene Oil. The matter was reported to the unit superiors and on 31.07.2008, the petitioner made a confessional statement. He submits today that the confessional statement was made under pressure. On the next date, i.e. 1.8.2008, the Commanding Officer of the petitioner's unit conducted a hearing and, on the basis of the confessional statement, proceeded to issue severe reprimand. This resulted in a red ink entry in the petitioner's service records which ultimately affected his further chances of promotion. Consequently, he submitted a non-statutory complaint to the respondents' higher authorities on 29.07.2011, i.e. more than 3 years after the incident. It is alleged that the petitioner sought certain documents and material details under the Right to Information Act the following year, i.e. in 2012.

(3.) Mr. Kalkal, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the petitioner has been virtually a victim of double jeopardy inasmuch as first he was inflicted with a red ink entry without an enquiry; and then to compound that his ACR too was adverse for the relevant year and that it has seriously prejudiced and affected his chances of promotion. Counsel sought to highlight that the Army did not follow the mandatory provisions of Rule 22 of the Army Rules, 1954, which mandates the manner in which charges levelled against a person subject to the Army Act are to be heard. It was urged that the prosecution witness who was produced at that time was not stationed in Delhi and could not, therefore, have been privy to what was alleged to have transpired. Learned counsel submitted that having regard to these facts, the infliction of a severe reprimand which resulted in a red ink entry was utterly unwarranted.