SUBEDAR MEWA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the year 1987 Subedar Mewa Singh (Petitioner) was serving the Indian Army in the Branch Recruitment Office, Secunderabad. He was attached to 3, Training Battalion, 1, EME Centre, Secunderabad. Allegedly on 15th June, 1986. while working as Assistant Recruiting Officer, the petitioner accepted a sum of Rs.2,000.00 from one Hav. M. Kondaiah, a decoy, as a motive for procuring enrolment of a few persons. Consequently a Court of Enquiry was ordered by Head Quarters Andhra Sub Area for the purpose of investigating into the circumstances under which the petitioner allegedly took illegal gratification. The Court of Enquiry commenced the proceedings on 18th June, 1986 and the petitioner was examined as the first witness. Needless to say the petitioner claimed to be innocent. This was followed by hearing of the charge by the Commanding Officer and the recording of Summary of Evidence. Ultimately, the Commanding Officer remanded the Officer for trial by the Court Martial which was conveyed by order dated 4th April, 1987. The trial which commenced on 11th April, 1987 was concluded on 15th May, 1987. It appears that the General Court Martial found the petitioner guilty of the charge and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 9 months. He was also ordered to be dismissed from the service. The confirming authority, however, directed the Court to reconsider its finding. To petitioner's disappointment, the General Court Martial returned the same finding and sentence which was confirmed on 24th December, 1987. On 7th of January, 1988 the sentence was promulgated. Finding himself dissatisfied, the petitioner submitted a post confirmation petition. However, that too was rejected. The petitioner still remains dissatisfied. Hence, this writ petition seeking quashing of the finding and sentence of the General Court Martial and praying for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence on number of grounds but during arguments the writ petition was pressed only on the following grounds: 1. The petitioner was compelled to appear as a witness against himself in violation of Rule 180 of the Army Rules. 2. During the Court of Enquiry the petitioner was made to sit outside the room and was neither afforded opportunity of being present throughout the enquiry nor of cross-examining the witnesses. As per the petitioner on account of this, Rule 180 of the Army Rules was violated. 3. The Commanding Officer violated Rule 22 of the Army Rules during the hearing of the charge as he allegedly did not allow the petitioner to cross-examine any witness and that none of the witnesses actually deposed and their earlier statements during Court of Enquiry were taken in and copied in the Summary of Evidence. This as per the petitioner, was in gross violation of Army Rule 23. 4. Petitioner sought permission to engage a civil lawyer but it was not granted and thus great prejudice was caused to him.

(3.) It need hardly be mentioned that as per the respondents none of the Army Rules cited above was flouted. The respondents claim that all the proceedings were held strictly in accordance with the Army Rules. Is it so? But then, let's first have a look at the relevant Rules.