UNION OF INDIA Vs. N K KAUSHIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT Col. N. K. Kaushik was Commander Works Engineer at Ambala. He had fried a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ quashing the order attaching him at 612 (1) AD Brigade for progressing continuing with the disciplinary proceedings towards court Martial. He had contended the same to be without jurisdiction on the ground that the charges-and the offences against him had become barred by time for purposes of the trial. The learned Single Judge on 7. 11. 1996 allowed the petition and order attaching the petitioner was held to be without jurisdiction. The disciplinary proceedings in progress, if any, were quashed. It was further directed that the authorities should relieve the respondent of all the consequences of the proceedings Under the Army Act.

(2.) UNION of India and others challenge the order of the learned Single Judge by virtue of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) RESPENDENT contends that he had no role to perform with regard to local purchases But Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'cbi') conducted a raid in the premises of the Garrison Engineers in the first week of February, 1992. It was on basis of some information that the payments against the local purchase have been made on an exorbitant prices. After the raid CBi investigated the matter The respondent was called to the office of CBI and was interrogated. a preliminary enquiry report was submitted on 18. 3. 1992. Thereafter the matter was progressed at various levels. As per the respondent all the authorities found that the petitioner was not involved. His tenure came to an end on 28. 8. 1992. He proceeded on posting as Head of the Department, Civil Engineering at Pune. He received communication directing his attachment for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. The message was received on 5. 7. 1995 requiring him to reach Ambala by 11. 7. 1995. The respondent contended that alleged offences had become time barred and, therefore, no proceedings could be initiated or continue after 3 years. He further contends that the offence, if any, had come to the notice of the authorities on 5/7. 2. 1992 and in any case when the CBI submitted the preliminary. enquiry report on 18. 3. 1992. He pressed into service Section 122 of the Army Act.