INDER PAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INDERPAL Singh-petitioner has filed present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of summary Court Martial proceedings dated 13.7.1992 (Annexure P-2) held against him in which he was awarded the sentence of dismissal from service and further for quashing the order dated 2.3.1995 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Vice Chief of Army Staff, whereby the sentence of dismissal awarded by the Court Martial was commuted to discharge which under the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Army Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules') could not legally be done and the same being illegal and without jurisdiction, with a further prayer that he be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits. Initially, this petition was numbered as CWP No. 7793 of 1995, but subsequently, it was treated as Criminal Writ Petition vide dated 21.3.1997 and numbered as Crl.W.P. No. 465 of 1987.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army as a Sepoy in April 1980. On 11.6.1992, when the petitioner alongwith other members of his Unit had gone on exercise and while he was resting under the shade of a tree, his rifle got accidentally discharged. The discharge of the rifle happened to injure Sepoy Iqbal Singh of the Unit. There was no allegation of any ill-will against the petitioner. For this omission, the petitioner was tried by the Summary Court Martial for an offence committed under Section 63 of the Act and he was charge-sheeted under the said Section for committing an omission prejudicial to good order and military discipline in which he, at Field on 11.6.1992 at about 1200 hrs. so negligently handled his rifle as to cause it to be discharged and thereby injuring Sepoy Iqbal Singh of the same Regiment. The summary Court Martial proceedings were conducted by the officiating Commanding Officer on 13.7.1992, in which the petitioner pleaded guilty and he was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. Before pleading guilty, the petitioner was duly explained the nature of the charge leveled against him. By knowing the contents and allegations of charge against him, he pleaded guilty.

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the Summary Court Martial proceedings held against him on 13.7.1992 (Annexure P-2) and the order dated 2.3.1995 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No. 2 vide which his dismissal order was converted into discharge, on various grounds, alleging that these are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.