PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is filed against the order of dismissal dated 14.09.2005 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in W.P.No.18454 of 2002 in which the appellant, being the appellant in the said Writ Petition 18454 of 2002, challenged the order of the third respondent dated 14.05.1999 in GX No.1595/1999 imposing rigorous imprisonment for 90 days and dismissal from service and deprivation of Good Conduct Badge.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the appellant was appointed as Mechanical Engineer - I in Naval Service in the year 1995 and that he was on duty at Volna Tower on Dolphins Nose Hill at Visakhapatnam from April 1998. On 29.12.1998 at about 6.00 PM he went to O.P Pandey's quarters informing his college Mr.H.Singh to collect uniform items to get ready for Muster Call on 31.12.1999 and after collection of the uniform, the appellant could not reach the Volna Tower and so, he informed the said Mr.Singh on telephone that he could not come there as he had to give urine and blood samples at I N S Veera Bahu, and took shelter in the house of Mr. Pandey. When he was about to leave the quarters early in the morning, Mr. Pandey came there and suspected that the appellant had illicit intimacy with his wife and gave a complaint against the appellant. The investigation conducted thereon by the Regulating Officer revealed no case against the appellant. But, the Unit Regulating Officer started investigating the case again recording statements of the witnesses including the Mrs. Kiran Pandey, who categorically stated that she had no illicit intimacy with the appellant and upon pressure by her husband, she wrote whatever dictated by him. The appellant was also forced by his unit officer to confess about the intercourse. Thereafter the officer gave a false report stating that a prima facie case is against the appellant. A summary enquiry was conducted against the appellant, but no prime witness was examined in his presence nor was he served with any charge sheet, and that he was not given any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. On 14.05.1999 an order was served on the appellant awarding punishment of a) rigorous imprisonment for 90 days, b) dismissal from naval service and c) deprivation of First Good Conduct Badge.

(3.) The respondents filed counter affidavit denying the averments in the affidavit and stating that on that day, he was not supposed to desert his place of duty without prior permission, which is a serious offence under Section 41(a) of the Navy Act, 1957; when the appellant was caught by Mr. Pandey and questioned about his presence in the quarter, he ran away and bolted the door from outside; that on receipt of complaint, Lieutenant Satish Kumar was appointed to conduct enquiry and basing on his report, the appellant was charged for the offences; the case was investigated by Lieutenant Commander (SDREG) Yd Singh, Regulating Officer as per Rules; every opportunity was given to the appellant during the enquiry; the details of summarily trial charge sheet and punishment awarded is recorded on punishment warrant which was publicly read out to the appellant in the presence of all other Sailors of the unit; as per provisions of the Navy Act, 1957 and Regulations made thereunder, the Commanding Officer is empowered to impose punishment of imprisonment, dismissal from Naval Service and deprivation of Good Conduct Badge; hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.