NARESH DAHIYA Vs. UOI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the Indian Army on 15.12.1984 and was promoted to the rank of Major in 2001. He was posted as Officer Commanding (OC), 530, Stores Supplies and Transport Company i.e. SS & TC (GREF), Project HIRAK, located at Bhandara (Maharashtra).

(2.) In brief, the facts necessary for disposal of the present writ petition are that in April, 2002, the process of auction for disposal of unserviceable vehicles/equipments/plants and other salvage stores lying under the custody of 530, SS &TC (GREF) at Bhandara was initiated by the Chief Engineer, Project HIRAK, he being the competent authority. The auction was scheduled for 09.08.2002. For the said auction, a catalogue showing details of 12 lots containing all class DEE/V/E/P and other salvage stores held with 530, SS & TC (GREF) was prepared and forwarded to HQ (P) HIRAK during the last week of April, 2002. On the basis of cost details of salvage stores in the auction catalogue, the Board of Officers convened by HQ (P), HIRAK determined the MRP. The auction process was completed but on being informed about an irregularity in the auction, the successful bidders were not allowed to collect the salvage stores. The HQ Chief Engineer, Project HIRAK on 23.08.2002 sent the case to HQ DGBR. A Court of Enquiry (COE) was ordered which found that the residual value of one TATA load Carrier in Lot No.10, was wrongly entered as Rs. 53,200/- whereas the residual book value was Rs. 1,06,300/- which had the effect of low valuation of MRP and a consequent reduction in the RGP and thus in lowering the highest bid amount. It was also noticed that that the signatures of the second highest bidders and other unsuccessful bidders on the bid sheet, in violation of the terms of amended Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 07.02.2002 were not obtained; further signatures of the actual persons against the Sl.No.32, 33 and 34 of the Gate Money register and caution money register were missing. The Court of Enquiry found the petitioner responsible for such lapses. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a tentative charge sheet was issued on 29.09.2003 for the offences under Section 52 (f) and 63 of the Army Act. Copies of the entire record of the Court of Enquiry was supplied to the petitioner and hearing of charge under Rule 22 of Army Rules, 1954 began on 29.09.2003 in the presence of petitioner where he was given full liberty to cross examine the witnesses and produce defence witnesses. The proceedings under Rule 22 concluded on 15.12.2003 and the Commanding Officer directed recording of summary of evidence. After the recording of summary of evidence, the competent authority decided to summarily try the petitioner and charge sheet was issued to him on 03.10.2004 for offences under Section 52 (f) and 63 of the Army Act. During summary trial the petitioner admitted his guilt which was recorded in Form 1 of Appendix A. The petitioner was awarded punishment of reprimand by order dated 06.10.2004. His statutory complaint dated 22.09.2006 was dismissed on 29.01.2010.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 06.10.2004 and 29.01.2010 in this writ petition on several grounds.