SUBA SINGH AULAKH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition speaks of pitfalls of the system in which the petitioner who believed that he was entitled to promotion but was denied it and was required to knock the doors of the Court. He retired before this petition could be decided on account of departmental wrangles. He blames the department for not giving him the promotion at appropriate moment.

(2.) AS per petitioner's case he was appointed in the Army in the month of September 1963 and, thereafter served in Army in various ranks. When he was leading 16 Guards at Jamnagar, some irregularities were alleged to have been committed by him. When he had left Jamnagar and joined his duty at some place in Nagaland, some complaints were received against him alleging misconduct which resulted in Court of Enquiry. It is not necessary to quote those allegations of misconduct in detail because they are mentioned in the return filed by the respondents. The petitioner participated in the Court of Enquiry. A report was submitted to the competent authority by the Court of Enquiry and thereafter some action was taken against petitioner by which disciplinary ban was imposed on his promotion since 25th August 1986 and in view of that, the petitioner was stagnated on the rank of Lt. Col. (substantive time -scale) till he retired. After gap of sufficient time after Court of Enquiry concluded, the petitioner was asked by the Higher Authorities whether he was opting for the Court -martial. The petitioner did not opt for that. Petitioner was thus never Court -martialed. The petitioner was not promoted in due course to higher ranks. He retired as Lt. Col. (substantive time -scale), on account of that ban on his promotion without his Court -martial.

(3.) THE petitioner further contended that the period of limitation indicated for the purpose of putting him to Court -martial had lapsed on account of default on the part of respondents and, therefore, the alleged complaints which were being used against him for blocking his claim for promotion stood meaningless. He further contended that as he was not put to Court -martial, the respondents did not have a right to put such alleged ban on his promotions. It appears to be his contention that the respondents were not in a position to prove those allegations against him, were unable to prove his misconduct and, therefore, they did not hold Court -martial against him which they could have done in view of provisions of Section 122 of Army Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as the Act for convenience). Petitioner contended in this context that the Court -martial should have commenced from the date of commission of alleged offence as contemplated by Section 122 of the Act and as it did not commence at proper time, in the result, the period of limitation prescribed by the same provision was over and, therefore, respondents were and are barred from taking of any disciplinary action against him in that context on those complaints.