EX HAVILDAR AKBAR SINGH BANS LAL SINGH Vs. CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF COMMANDANT AND EX OFFICIO CHIEF RECORDS OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition the petitoner has approached this court for issuing a writ of certiorari summoning the record of the impugned Summary Court Martial proceedings and quash the same. The further relief claimed in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 12.3.1997, Annexure-1 to the amendment application and a writ of mandamus directing the, respondents to reinstate the petitoner with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts arising out of the writ petition is that the petitoner was enrolled in the Army on 25.3.84. Then the petitioner was posted at Srinagar. Subsequently, the petitoner has served as Artillery Records, Nasik Road Camp from 28.10.1987 to 31.7.91 and from August 1991 to 15.8.94 at 17, Station Regiment. The petitoner joined Head quarter'31 Artillery .Brigade located at Jhansi on permanent posting on 25.8.94. The petitoner while serving in 175, Field Regiment has availed his leave and after posting to 31 Artillery Brigade had asked for 30 days part of annual leave to be debited to the year 1995 and the same was sanctioned. It transpired subsequently that the petitoner has availed the excess leave and there was no entry. Then the petitoner was directed to show cause regarding his availing excess leave. A

(3.) charge sheet was issued to the petitoner and after recording the summary of evidence a Summary Court martial as provided under the Act was held against the petitoner. The first charge against the petitoner was under Section 63 of the Army Act to the effect that at Jhansi on 27.8.1994 when interviewed by Lt. Col. N. Prasad stated that he had not availed his earned (annual) leave for the year 1994, which statement as he was aware was false. The second charge against the petitoner was that on 3.10.1984, the petitoner improperly proceeded on 35 days part of earned Jeave for the year 1994 knowing fully well that he had already availed his full-earned leave for the said period. The third charge against the petitoner was that on 31.12.1994 the petitioner improperly proceeded on 15 days part of earned leave for the year 1994 knowing fully well that he had already availed his full earned (Annual) leave for the said year.