M J REDDY Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judicial review of an order passed by the Court Martial is limited to finding out whether there is any illegality, procedural irregularity or perversity in what the court martial has done. A writ court examining a challenge to the order does not sit in appeal over what the court martial has held or directed. It does not reappraise evidence to find out whether a view contrary to the one taken by the court martial is possible. Even if a contrary view is possible, it does not substitute that view for that of the court martial. Even on the question of quantum of punishment, the court interferes only when the punishment is so disproportionate to the gravity of offence committed by the offender that it shocks the conscience of the court. These guiding principles are settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 749, Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759, Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611, Union of India v. K.G. Soni (2006) 6 SCC 794.

(2.) The petitioner has in this writ petition assailed an order of punishment imposed upon him by the Summary General Court Martial who tried him on the following three charges :-

(3.) The court martial found the petitioner not guilty in so far as charges (i) and (ii) above are concerned. As regards charge No. (iii), the Court Martial found him guilty and imposed upon him the punishment of a severe reprimand. Dissatisfied with the punishment, the confirming authority ordered a revision of the punishment in exercise of its powers under Section 160 of the Army Act. The summary General Court Martial accordingly revised the sentence to make the same more severe. The revised sentence was as under: "a) To take rank and precedence as if his appointment as a substantive Lieutenant Colonel bore date the Ninth day of February, 2004, b) To forfeit five years past service for the purpose of pension, c) To be severely reprimanded."