CHHATAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us is the unsuccessful writ petitioner whose petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of his dismissal from service passed under Section 20 of the Army Act, 1950 (for short "the Act") has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 6.2.1996.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of this case are that the appellant, who joined the Indian Army in October, 1975, also remained posted between March, 1984 to October, 1986 in the Zonal Recruiting Office, Jalandhar Cantonment. Certain complaints of extortion of money and fabrication of false certificates having been received against him, the matter was got probed from the Central Bureau of Investigation. A raid conducted at the appellant's house resulted in recovery of solved answer sheets. Further allegations were also levelled against the appellant that he had amassed money and properties which were disproportionate to his known sources of income. After completion of necessary formalities, the appellant was consequently dismissed from service by order dated 5.7.1991, the challenge to which by way of writ petition, as noticed already, met with failure.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the appellant before the learned Single Judge that under Section 20 of the Act, it was only the officer who was commanding a Brigade, was competent to pass an order of dismissal and, therefore, the order of appellant's dismissal dated 5.7.1991 passed by Brig. Surender Mohan was bad in law as the said officer was not commanding the Brigade. It was further submitted by the counsel that the appellant was entitled to the supply of the copies of the complaints etc. and in the circumstances of the case, there was clear denial of reasonable opportunity to the appellant to make his submissions. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant were controverted and ultimately, two prominent questions fell for consideration before the learned Single Judge, viz. (i) was the order of dismissal of the appellant without jurisdiction ? and (ii) was the appellant given a due and reasonable opportunity ? The submissions made on both the above issues did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge on examination of the submissions and the relevant rules came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal from service was not passed by an authority which did not have the jurisdiction to pass it. It was further clearly held that there was no denial of reasonable opportunity to the appellant.