EX RIFLEMAN KULDEEP SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner calls in question an order of his dismissal from service pursuant to a Summary Court Martial. A mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages has also been prayed for. The facts giving rise to the petition may be summarized as under :-

(2.) On 17.4.92, the petitioner, while on active duty in Assam as a Rifleman, serving in the Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry, was deployed to carry out recce of an ambush area as a member of a patrol sent under Ex Hav Mohan Lal. On reaching village Jhargaon, the patrol was sub-divided into three sub-patrols comprising three jawans each. The petitioner was a member of sub-patrol No. 3 under Lance Naik Karnail Singh.

(3.) According to the petitioner, after completing the task assigned to it, the patrolling party re-assembled and left for the Army Camp. In the afternoon, the husband of Mrs. Janki Sakia, a resident of village Jhargaon complained to the authorities that Lance Naik Karnail Singh had misbehaved with his wife during the search of the former's house. A complaint to that effect was lodged even with the Police Station at Khairabari District Durrang, Assam on the basis whereof FIR No. 17/92 was registered under Section 376, 354, 448 and 134 of the IPC. A Court of Enquiry was immediately ordered by the Commanding Officer of the petitioner's Battalion to find out as to who out of the nine Armymen was involved in the alleged incident. The Court of Enquiry did not find the petitioner guilty of the charge of rape or molestation of Smt. Sakia. Additional Summary of Evidence was then ordered to be recorded in May, 1993 in which Mrs. Janki Sakia appeared as CW-1 while Mrs. Deka, another witness appeared as CW-2. Both these witnesses clearly stated that the petitioner was not involved in the incident. The petitioner's grievance is that instead of closing the issue, the Commanding Officer altered the original charges and issued a charge sheet alleging commission of an Act Prejudicial to Good Order and Military Discipline, an offence punishable under Section 63 of the Army Acts, in that, the petitioner had allegedly made statements about the activities of the patrol before the Investigating Officer which he knew to be false. The charge framed against the petitioner may at this stage be extracted in extenso:-