SHER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10 -1 -2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.M. Writ Petition No. 35346 of 1997 whereby the writ petition has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present special appeal are as follows: According to the appellant writ petitioner he was enrolled in the Indian Army on 25 -2 -1984. He was shifted to Holding Battery Depot Regiment Nasik Road Camp on 12 -6 -1996 and thereafter to R.P. Section Depot on 3 -7 -1996 on medical grounds. According to the appellant writ petitioner he was admonished by one Shri Sulkhan Singh, R.P. Hawaldar on 4 -7 -1996 and was asked to work under him. It is alleged that he was required to give a Bottle of Rum (wine) as bribe otherwise he was to face dire consequences. The appellant writ petitioner did not oblige and instead reported the matter to the Commanding Officer vide representation dated 16 -7 -1996. An inquiry was initiated but the appellant writ petitioner was not associated and he was not afforded any opportunity to examine or cross -examine the witnesses and Summary Court Martial was held and the appellant writ petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 28 -10 -1996 passed by the Commanding Officer, Artillery Regiment, Nasik Road. The appellant writ petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the General Officer Commanding in Chief, Southern Command, Poona, Maharastra which was sent by registered post on 24 -12 -1996. When the appeal was not being decided, he approached the Court by means of a writ petition which was disposed of with the direction to the concerned authority to decide the appeal within two months. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 25 -6 -1997. Both the orders of dismissal dated 28 -10 -1996 and the order dated 25 -6 -1997 rejecting his appeal was challenged by the appellant writ petitioner before this Court by means of a C.M. Writ Petition No. 35346 of 1997 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 10 -1 -2001 which is under challenge in the present Special Appeal.

(3.) HE further submitted that the provisions of Section 33 of the Act and Rule 44 of the Rules have also been violated as the petitioner was not informed about the name of the Presiding Officer and the Members so that he may raise his objection, if any, which vitiate the entire proceedings. He relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjeet Thakur v. Union of India, 1997 SC 2386 and Ltd. Col. Preti Pal Singh Bvedi v. Union of India and others, AIR 1982 SC 1413. He further submitted that Rule 129 of the Act and Rule 33 of the Army Rules, have also been violated as he was not given the help of any person to assist him during the trial which would violate the principle of natural justice. He relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Rameshwar Mahto, 1993 AWC 883.