SHYAMVEER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as a Lans Naik in the Indian Army. By an order dated 19.04.2004 issued by Major S.B. Malagi, Bty. Commandant, he was deputed to perform the duties of a 'Sahayak' with Captain M.K. Agnihotri. The order clearly mentioned that if the petitioner failed to obey the same, appropriate action will be initiated against him under the Military Law. The petitioner admittedly did not obey the said command issued to him as a result of which he was tried summarily under Section 80 of the Army Act for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 41 (2) of the Act. The official record produced before us shows that the petitioner had pleaded guilty to that charge and was given a reprimand. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the said order and sentence and also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to give effect to order dated 05.06.2004 by which the petitioner had been approved for promotion to the next higher rank of Naib.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Kauntae, learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and Ms. Barkha Babbar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents who has produced the relevant record before us. Two distinct aspects emerge for our consideration. The first relates to the validity of the sentence of reprimand imposed upon the petitioner while the second relates to his promotion to the next higher rank of Naik. Insofar as the validity of sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, Mr. Kauntae, Advocate argued that the petitioner had no doubt declined to perform the duties of a 'Sahayak' but that was because a 'Sahayak' is required to do menial work with the Officer concerned which the petitioner was not ready to do. We see no merit in that contention. There is nothing on record before us either in the writ petition or otherwise to show that the order directing the petitioner to work as a 'Sahayak' with Captain Agnihotri was unlawful looking to the rank of the petitioner or the nature of the duties which a 'Sahayak' is expected to perform. That apart, the petitioner had pleaded guilty to the charge leveled against him which was a good enough reason for the Commanding Officer to punish him suitably. Inasmuch as the Commanding Officer has simply reprimanded the petitioner, he committed no illegality or perversity to warrant interference from this court.

(3.) Coming to the second grievance of the petitioner, we find that the petitioner had been approved for the promotion to the next higher rank of Naik in terms of an order dated 05.06.2004 The petitioner has placed a copy of the said order with the writ petition as Annexure P-3. The petitioner's case appears to be that there was no modification of the said order and that denial of promotion to him was wholly unjustified.