SUBEDAR S N THAKUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are Junior Commissioned Officers and are presently posted in Detachment Base Workshop Group EME No. 16 (Inspection) at Delhi Cantt. Their case is that between February, 1998 to October, 1998 there were two inquiries held in the Unit, based on their complaint made against their immediate superior (respondent No. 7). They were called as witnesses and during this period were attached to another Unit within Delhi. On 7.11.1998 some proceedings under Army Rule 22 were initiated against them by respondent No. 6, who framed charge sheet against them under Sections 63,64 and 65 of the Army Act. They were neither supplied with the copy of the charge sheet nor other connected documents. They were made to sign some papers. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 9.11.1998 for purposes of recording summary of evidence under Army Rule 23. Four applications were submitted by the petitioners on 8.11.1998. The petitioners claimed that as the proceedings against them were being held in violation of Army Act, Army Rules and Regulations, they had no option but to approach this Court for appropriate directions. The petitions were filed on 8.11.1998 and came up before the Court on 10.11.1998 when notice was directed to be issued to the respondents. Relevant record was directed to be kept ready in Court. Learned Counsel for the parties were heard on 18.11.1998.

(2.) GOC-in-C, Delhi Area passed an order for convening of Court of Inquiry against Lt-Col.(T.S) N.I.Singh to investigate the allegations made by some Junior Commissioned Officers and Other Ranks (JCO's/OR's) of Detachment No. 16, Technical Group EME,Delhi Cantt. which they had directly sent to the Defence Minister. Record further reveals that the petitioners were amongst the other signatories in the complaint and they were examined as witness Nos. 1 and 7during Court of Inquiry Proceedings conducted against the said Lt. Col. (TS) N.I.Singh. Report of the Court of Inquiry was placed before GOC-in-C, Delhi Area, who, on 29.8.1998 forwarded the same to GOC-in-C, Western Command with his directions/ recommendations. On 16.9.1998 after perusing of record and report of the Court of inquiry proceedings along with the the recommendations/directions of the GOC-in-CDelhi Area concurred with the directions/recommendations and directed that disciplinary action be taken against the petitioners for the following lapses:

(3.) Pursuant to the aforementioned directions / recommendations of GOC-in-C, Western Command, it appears that the Commanding Officer on and from 7.11.1998 proceeded with the hearing of the charge as per the procedure laid down inchapter V of Army Rules, 1954. The Commanding Officer appears to have dispensed with the procedure laid down in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of hearing of the charge in the presence of the accused and of examining the witnesses in his presence. He straightaway proceeded to direct that the summary of evidence be recorded. Rule 22 of the Army Rules, 1954, as amended by Amendment Rules, 1993 reads: