EX. SEPOY RANJIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a writ of Certiorari quashing order dated 9.2.2002 (Annexure P.1) passed by Summary Court Martial dismissing the petitioner from service and awarding him three months R.I. A further prayer has been made for quashing the order of the Chief of Army Staff dated 13.1.2003 (Annexure P-3) confirming the sentence passed by the Summary Court Martial. The consequential relief of reinstatement and full backwages have also been claimed.

(2.) THE petitioner was enrolled in Territorial Army as a Sepoy in May 1993 and was allocated to 103 Infantry Battalion. On 23.1.2002 when the petitioner was on patrolling duty, he is alleged to have committed an indecent act at about 2300 hours. The aforementioned act is covered by Section 46 of the Army Act, 1950 (for brevity 'the Act'). On 9.2.2002, a Summary Court Martial was held, by Col. T.P.S. Gill, Commanding Officer 152 Infantry Battalion (T.A.) Sikh at Ludhiana for an offence committed by the petitioner under Section 46 for committing a disgraceful conduct of an indecent kind. The particulars of the charge are that on 23.1.2002 at about 11.00 PM, the petitioner with indecent intention forced drinks on No. NYA Recruit Surinder Singh of the same battalion and then open his trouser. The petitioner was held guilty of the charge as he pleaded guilty. He was awarded the punishment of three months R.I. and dismissal from service. Thereafter, his appeal filed under Section 164(2) of the Act was also rejected by the Chief of the Army Staff on 13.1.2003. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel and perusing the record, I find that on 9.2.2002, the petitioner appeared before the Summary Court Martial and the charge sheet was read over the explained to him. The charge sheet was marked as B-2. In answer to the question No. 1 as to whether he is guilty or not to the charge against him, the petitioner answered 'guilty' and the same is signed. However, before recording the same as finding of the Court that the petitioner had pleaded guilty, the Court was to ascertain that the petitioner understood the nature of the charge, to which he had pleaded guilty. Accordingly, Rule 115(2) of the rules was followed and the petitioner was again asked as to whether he pleaded guilty or not to the charge, to which the petitioner pleaded guilty. The findings were thereafter recorded that at field on 23.1.2002 at 11 P.M., the petitioner with indecent intent forced drinks on, and opened the trouser of, NYA Recruit Surinder Singh of the same battalion. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and he was also dismissed from service. Even his appeal filed under Section 164(2) of the Act was dismissed on 13.1.2003 vide Annexure P-3. The observation of the Chief of the Army Staff while dismissing the appeal reads as under ;-