RABINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT -Rabinder Singh Deol, a selection grade Colonel, unsuccessfully challenged the proceeding, findings and sentence of General Court Martial held against him between June 24, 1987 and October 1, 1987 vide which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year coupled with cashiering from service, as the writ petition, filed by him, challenging the proceedings aforesaid, found no favour with the learned Single Judge, before whom the matter came up for ultimate disposal on May 31, 1991. Aggrieved, appellant (here -in -after referred to as 'petitioner') has challenged order of learned Single Judge in this appeal filed by him under Clause X of the Letters Patent.

(2.) EVEN though facts, leading to trial of petitioner by a General Court Martial and punishment given to him, as mentioned above, grounds on which such proceedings came to be challenged as also the defence projected by respondent -Union of India, have been given in sufficient details by learned Single Judge, yet same, even though in brevity, need a necessary mention.

(3.) LEARNED Single Judge of this Court, after giving facts in detail and reproducing the grounds, on which Court Martial proceedings had since been challenged as also the defence projected in the written statement, observed that the petitioner had raised questions of fact and in order to satisfy that the proceedings before the General Court Martial were in accordance with the Army Act, 1950 and the Rules made thereunder, original record had been summoned, perusal whereof would reveal that the petitioner had substantially reiterated the same points as were raised by him in the post -confirmation petition submitted by him to the Central Government under Sub -section (2) of Section 164 of the Army Act, 1950. The said petition was examined in minutest details by Lt. General Y.S. Tomar. The post confirmation report along with report of Lt. Gen. Y.S. Tomar was submitted to the Chief of Army Staff, who is prescribed authority for disposing of the post -confirmation petition and the Chief of Army Staff approved the note submitted by Lt. General Y.S. Tomar. It was further observed that wild and uncalled for insinuations had been made in the writ petition that the General Court Martial proceedings were irregular but the Court, in its extra -ordinary jurisdiction, was not inclined to examine the disputed questions of fact. The plea of petitioner that the officers conducting the General Court Martial proceedings did not allow opportunity to him to cross -examine the prosecution witnesses, to lead his defence and to permit the defence counsel to make proper submissions, then came to be focussed by the learned Single Judge and it was observed that a senior officer of the Army, who had appeared in the Court at the time of hearing, pointed out that the petitioner was represented by a counsel, including the counsel, who represented him in the writ petition, and in the General Court Martial proceedings, innumerable adjournments were granted to the petitioner despite objections by the prosecution and that the Presiding Officer of the General Court Martial gave ample opportunity to the petitioner to lead his defence and cross -examine the prosecution witnesses. By noting some other facts also, learned Single Judge thought it proper to reproduce the draft note prepared by Lt. General. Y.S. Tomar dated November 18, 1988, which contained background of the case, points raised by the petitioner and the comments on the said points, recommendations of the intermediary Commanders, examination of the whole case and final recommendations and held that in the draft note, the factual allegations made by the petitioner were found to be baseless. Insofar as legal submissions are concerned, same were held to have been concluded against the petitioner by judgment of Supreme Court in G.S. Sodhi v. Union of India . It was further observed by learned Single Judge that in the present case there were no proceedings or proof of any prejudice that might have been caused to the petitioner on account of infraction of any of the rules by the General Court Martial and that the allegations had been found to be incorrect by the Chief of Army Staff. It was further observed by learned Single Judge that in the light of the comments of Lt. General Y.S. Tomar, he was not inclined to examine the correctness of factual allegations made in the petition regarding General Court Martial proceedings.