RANJIT SINGH CHAURASIA Vs. UNION OFINDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was an employee in the Indian Army. He was tried by a summary Court-martial for the offence of using insubordinate language to his superior officer. He was found guilty of the offence. THE Court-martial sentenced him to three months imprisonment as well as dismissal from service. THE appellant availed of the remedies available to him under the Army Act, 1950, but failed to get any redress. He thereupon filed a writ petition in this Court. THE only point he urged before the learned Single Judge was that the summary Court-martial did not have the jurisdiction or power to inflict the punishment of dismissal from service in addition to the punishment of imprisonment for three months. THE learned Single judge did not accept this contention and dismissed the writ. Against the judgment of the learned Single judge, this appeal has been filed.

(2.) SECTIONS 34 to 68 of the Army Act, 1950, set out the offences punishable under this Act and the punishments that may be inflicted on conviction for these offences. The appellant was tried for an offence under Section 40 (c) for using insubordinate language to his superior officer. The maximum punishment provided for this offence under Section 40 is five years. Section 71 of the Act, which prescribes punishments awardable by Courts-martial, runs thus:-

(3.) ON our interpretation of Section 73 as set out above we are of opinion that the summary court- martial in the present case had jurisdiction under Section 73 to inflict the punishment of dismissal on the appellant in addition to the punishment of imprisonment for three months. The order of the summary court-martial was in accordance with the provisions of Section 73 and cannot be successfully challenged as being without jurisdiction.