LALMON MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges an order dated 14.06.2010 under Rule 22 of the Army Rules, 1954 by the Commanding Officer of 1812 Pioneer Corps situated at Guwahati at that point of time. The order had imposed a penalty under Section 409(c) and 41 of Army Act, 1950 and consequent summary trial concluding in an award of 28 days of rigorous imprisonment which was subsequently reduced to 21 days.

(2.) THE facts are that on 12.06.2010 the petitioner was on duty at 9:00 PM when PNR N.K. Mishra informed him that he was to proceed to Bangalore the next day, 13.06.2010, for temporary duty to attend a Pre -Drill Course at PCTC. The petitioner contends that the order was a camouflage for running a personal errand for the fourth respondent. He alleges that no movement order and rail warrant was issued. Furthermore, the course was to be conducted between 07.07.2010 to 17.07.2010, with a reporting date of 05.06.2010. The petitioner was given orders to depart on 13.06.2010 and would reach Bangalore near the termination of the course. He also submits that two officers were already sent for the very same course. Petitioner, thus, contended that this proved the malafide nature of the temporary duty and that the real reason was to deliver some package on behalf of the fourth respondent and deny him his promotion. The petitioner had attended his promotion cadre course, NPC II to I from 01.06.2010 to 12.07.2010 for his ACP.

(3.) THE petitioner submits that he filed a statutory complaint on 10.04.12 when he was posted to 1811 Pioneer Corps in Delhi. When no decision was given in 8 months, the petitioner preferred W.P. 745/2013 to this Court. Directions were issued on 08.02.2013 in this regard to decide the complaint in 6 weeks time. However, when such time elapsed the petitioner filed Contempt Petition Cont.Case(C) 780/ 2013, which was decided on 08.10.2013. The respondent sought time stating that the comments of the erstwhile CO were required who had retired. This Court issued directions to dispose of the complaint within 4 weeks. On 05.11.2013 the statutory complaint was rejected, which the petitioner challenges on grounds of non -application of mind.