NARENDRA PAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while borne in the books of 13 Garhwal Rifles as a Rifleman holding the rank of Acting Lance Nayak was chargesheeted vide charge-sheet dated 18.6.1993 under Section 52 of the Army Act, 1950 for having committed theft in respect of Carbine, Machinegun 9 m.m. Regd. No. ZZ-1945, the property of the Government on the charge of JC 171974-X Sub. Devi Prasad of the same Unit and on trial by the summary Court Martial by Lt. Col. R.C. Malik was awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three months in civil prison and dismissal from service vide order dated 25.6.1993. The petitioner moved an application dated 4.10.1993 for annulment of proceedings under Section 155 of the Army Act. The application came to be rejected by General Officer Commanding 24th Infantry Bn c/o 56 A.P.O. vide order dated 1.3.1994.

(2.) The sentence awarded vide order dated 25.6.1993 in summary Court Martial proceedings are sought to be quashed by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages and all consequential benefits is also sought for.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Court Martial proceedings are vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions contained in Rules 22, 23 and 24 of the Army Rules. It has been submitted for the petitioner that the hearing of the charge by the Commanding Officer was conducted by Col. P.R. Bakshi but the petitioner was subsequently tried by Lt. Col. R. C. Malik in Court Martial. The settled law, proceeds the submission, is that the person who carried out, the proceedings under Rule 24 of the Army Rules alone could try the accused by summary Court Martial. Trial of the petitioner in summary Court Martial by an officer other than Col. P.R. Bakshi was, submits the learned Counsel, illegal.