RAJKUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant writ petitioner has been serving in the Army since 1983. In November, 1998 he was transferred from Bangalore to Dimapur on promotion as Lt. Colonel. Facts which emerges now, are that one Capt. D.S. Sisodia is alleged to have sent a complaint against the writ petitioner appellant to the authorities on 02.09.2000 which reads as under - "Bangalore (Karnataka) 02 Sept. 2000 0004/DS/01 CDA(O) Golibar Maidan, Pune-411001. False Claim for transportation of car on transfer Lt. Col. R.K. Sharma in Nov. '98 1. It has recently come to my knowledge that IC-45154 Lt. Col. Raj Kumar Sharma preferred a false claim of Rs.18,000/- for transportation of his car from Bangalore to Dimapur (Nagaland) and of the claim. Actually he did not take any car to Dimapur on posting, because he had sold his old Ford Car to me before going on posting I have also been cheated by him in this car. I paid him Rs.1.6 lakh for the car, which was not even worth Rs.80,000/-. I believe he has been taking W.T.S. and claims of ticket for his mother, who never joined him. 2. Matter is submitted for your information and investigation. Sd/- (Capt D.S. Sisodia) Copy to GOC HQ 101 Area, C/O 99 APO."

(2.) On the basis of this complaint a preliminary investigation was carried out by one Col. R.K. Singh, who submitted his report holding that there was a prima facie case against the appellant writ petitioner in so far as the allegations regarding the claim of Rs.18,000/- as transportation charge of his car and also regarding misuse of the warrants. However, regarding selling the car at a higher price, it was felt that same was a personal matter which needed no consideration. On the basis of the preliminary investigation a Convening Order of Court of Enquiry was issued by the Army authorities which lead the appellant as writ petitioner to challenge the same by way of W.P.(C) No. 193(K)/2000. The same has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 14.09.2001. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the Army Order 4/2000 pertaining to investigation and disposal of general complaints. He particularly referred to Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said Order, which are in the following terms