LT COL JAGGA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition raises a very short point as to whether Army authorities could dismiss the petitioner summarily after having initiated disciplinary proceedings against him under Sections 63 & 64-A of the India Army Act. (in short the "Act") i.e. after leaving taken formal cognizance of the offence by recording summary of evidence. In onder to answer this question the admitted facts are that the petitioner then Major was officiating as Officer Commanding from 6th August, 1983 to 6th September, 1983 in place of permanent incumbent having gone on annual leave. On 2nd September, 1983 a theft of 14,000.00 look place. This amount was the undisbursed pay of unit personnel held with the Battery Havaldar Major. Theft was alleged to have been committed by Gunner Udai Singh alongwith Ex. Gunner Gian Singh Kubawat. On 5th September, 1983, Gunner Udai Singh after being tortured with third degree method confessed to have committed the theft and produced the cash hidden by him. He also furnished the names of his accomplice. On 12th September, 1983. Gunner Udai Singh was admitted in hospital on complaint of injuries having received by him at the hands of unit personnel. Gunner Udai Singh died in the Hospital on 18th September, 1983. Record of the general Hospital reveal cause of death of Udai Singh as cardiac arrest due to or on account of acute renal failure or as a consequence of multiple injuries.

(2.) A court of enquiry to investigate info the circumstances was held from 28th October, 1983 and an additional court of enquire was held on 27th January, 1984. On the basis of preliminary investigation a tentative charge sheet dated 27th April, 1984 was issued to the petitioner, on the basis of which the petitioner was held blame worthy by the officer commanding of 25th Infantory Division for:- (a) For giving an unlawful command to IC-39774 Y Capt. N. V. Saxena for use of criminal force against No. 13457713 Ex. Gunner Udai. Singh and No. 14355346 Gunner Gian Singh to extract confession for theft. (b) For altering certain words in the Summary of Evidence of Ex. Gunner Gian Singh to tally with the statement in the Staff Court of Inquiry. (c) For tampering/influencing of tampering of the in/out register entries showing his time of arrival in the Unit on 5th September, 1983. (d) For failure to stop the use of criminal force on late Gunner Udai Singh and Ex. Gunner Gain Singh. (e) For knowingly making a false statement initially before the Staff Court of Inquiry on 3rd November, 1983 till corrected-later on 11th November, 1983. (f) For failure to inform the CO of the use of criminal force against late Gunner Udai Singh: and Ex Gunner Gian Singh. (g) For suppressing evidence in as much as he did not produce the document purporting to the investigation carried out by Capt. D. Banerjee on 6th September, 1983.

(3.) Thereafter, no further action was taken on the said charge sheet and the matter remained dormant. However, a year after on 19th April, 1985 another tentative charge sheet was issued almost on the same grounds on. which earlier charge sheet was issued. The case was thereafter remanded for recording summary of evidence which was recorded from 19th April, 1985 to 22nd July, 1985. Petitioner declined to make any statement at the time of recording of summary of evidence. Thereafter, no action was tatke by the Army authorities for almost a year. On 31st May, 1986, the Headquarters of 24 Infantory Division issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why administrative action be not taken against him. To this the petitioner replied on 1st June, 1986 thereby controverting all the allegations levelled against him. Thereafter authorities remained silent. On 21st November, 1986 Headquarters of 24th Infantory Division issued another letter indicating that the case against petitioner and others had become time barred. The same could continue by convening a General Court 'Martial for which the consent of the petitioner was required, otherwise the case could be handed over to the police for trial by a Civil Court. It was further suggested that additional summary of evidence be recorded against other accused persons. Petitioner did not give his consent for General Court Martial but consented that his case be handed over to civil police for trial by the Civil Court. No further action thereafter was taken. On 15th May, 1989. respondent No. 2 issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why he be not dismissed from service under Section 19 read with Army Rule 14, for the acts of omission and commission committed by him in criminal case on the basis of 'offence mentioned in the tentative charge sheets. This the petitioner replied vide his letters dated 6th July, 1984 and 12th Angust, 1989 respectively. On 13th November, 1990, petitioner was dismissed from service under Section 19 of the Act read with Rule 14 of Army Rules.