R B SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India preferred by an Ex -Airforce Man, feeling aggrieved by an order of General Court Martial dismissing him from service. The jurisdiction of this Court was sought to be invoked through a letter -petition addressed to the Court by the petitioner. The letter -petition contains practically no statement of facts and is not accompanied by any documents. It does not contain narration of any specific grounds on which the General Court Martial proceedings and the final order passed therein are challenged. In its anxiety to assist the petitioner, if at all he has been a sufferer of any injustice and to assist him if this Court can within the permissible constitutional limits, the Court took cognizance of the letter -petition and issued a rule nisi but only to land itself into a roving inquiry, as the developments of the case do show.

(2.) THERE has been an endless round of pleadings, return followed by rejoinder; rejoinder followed by reply to rejoinder, followed by additional rejoinder and so on and so forth. Before us, the petitioner who was pleading his own case was provided assistance of the Advocates of this Court acting amicus curiae. But the hearings have been piecemeal, as of necessity they should have been, for want of full and specific pleadings. We have called for original record of the General Court Martial proceedings to satisfy ourselves of the legality thereof. On all the dates of hearing, the petitioner himself has been present in the Court. With patience we heard his advocate amicus curiae and the petitioner as well. At times, we had to request the officers of the Department also, present in the Court with the record, bulky indeed, to assist us by offering clarification by reference to the record, so as to throw light on points of obscurity.

(3.) WE propose to dispose of each of the contentions seriatim by reference to the record of the proceedings whereinto we have looked with assistance of the respondents' counsel. Contention No. 1