GOVIND NATH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S.S. Chaudhary. Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for the Union of India. The petitioner was a Revenue Officer, a Patwari, in the Uttarakhand Revenue Services. Vide order dated 15.9.2004 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) his services have been terminated. The petitioner has challenged this order before this Court.

(2.) Prior to his joining the above revenue services as Patwari in the year 1991 the petitioner was a "Sepoy" in the Indian Army, with the Kumaon Regiment. While he was a Sepoy in the 9th Batallion of Kumaon Regiment which was deployed as a part of the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Srilanka in the year 1989, he faced a Summary Court Martial and subsequently was "dismissed" from services. Consequently, thereafter he joined services as Patwari. He continued to perform the services of Patwari arid there is no complaint whatsoever against him during his tenure as Patwari in the revenue services. All the same, on a complaint received from the Records Officer of Kumaon Regiment Headquarters at Ranikhet dated 10.4.2003 with the District Magistrate, Bageshwar' which stated they have been informed that Ex-Sepoy Govind Nath resident of Village Kafaldunga, Post- Bantoli, Baijnath, Tehsil-Garur, District Bageshwar is working as a Patwari in Uttarakhand revenue services and that prior to his joining as Patwari he was a Sepoy in Indian Army and was awarded a punishment of dismissal from service after facing Summary Court martial, although "he is not eligible for appointment to a Civil Post". The complaint adds further that "some villagers have also complained to this office that he (i.e. the petitioner) is threatening and harassing them (copy of complaint is enclosed in original)." This became the main reason for the District Magistrate, Bageshwar to institute an enquiry against the petitioner where it was found that the petitioner was charged under Section 40 (a) of the Army Act. Section 40 of the Army Act reads as follows :-

(3.) Under the Army Act, 1950 there are certain offences given under sections 34 to 68 (one of them being Section 40, with which we are presently concerned and which has been referred above). These offences also prescribe the punishment if one is convicted of that offence. For example, under Section 40 of the Army Act punishment for striking or threatening superior officer is given as under:-