K. N. SURENDRAN Vs. SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the decisions contained in Exts.P2, P4 and P8 by which the writ petitioner, charge-sheeted as per Ext. P1, was imposed punishment following trial by Court Martial and such decision confirmed by the competent authorities, in appeals.

(2.) Petitioner governed by the provisions of the Navy Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as die "Act", was posted in Port Blair in Andaman and Nicobar Islands as the Base Victualing Officer with responsibility of supplying dry and fresh rations to troops of the Army, Navy and Air Force and their families positioned in Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Ext.Pl charge-sheet was issued on different counts relatable to discharge of his duties and responsibilities in Andaman and Nicobar Islands. By Ext.P2, he was found guilty of six out of seven charges, following trial by Court Marital at Port Blair. He was relieved from Naval Service immediately thereafter. After remitting the fine imposed on him, he submitted a petition before the Judge Advocate General seeking judicial review. He was, thereafter, advised by order dated 24-10-1996 that the Chief of the Naval Staff had retained the conviction and sentence. Petitioner, therefore, filed an appeal to the Central Government under Section 162 of the Act. That was rejected on 7-4-1997. He filed O.P. 12185/1997 before this Court. That led to Ext.P3 judgment. This Court came to the conclusion that the report of the Judge Advocate General had not received proper attention of the CNS and that a re-consideration was required and accordingly, the decision of the CNS and that of the Government of India, in appeal, were quashed directing reconsideration. Thereafter, the CNS issued Ext.P4 order maintaining the findings recorded on Charges 1,2,3,4, and 6. That order has been confirmed by the Government of India by Ext.P8 appellate order.

(3.) Though elaborate pleadings have been placed on record and the relevant official records were also summoned to be placed before this Court, it has been argued on behalf of the respondents that the question of jurisdiction may be considered since, according to the learned Additional Solicitor General, the writ petition is not sustainable before this Court in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.