SURINDER PAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURINDER Pal Singh, petitioner, Ex-Havildar has filed the present writ petition against Union of India through its Chief of Army Staff and Col. R.S. Phaugat, respondent No. 4 and Col. A.K. Negi, Commanding Officer of Regiment No. 325 AD and has sought the directions for the quashing of the proceedings of the Summary Court Martial and the sentence which has been awarded upon the petitioner on the ground that the proceedings of the Summary Court Martial and the sentenced awarded to the petitioner vide which he has was "reduced to Ranks", are totally illegal, without jurisdiction and that the charge which was levelled against him in order to conduct the court martial was not made out at all and was not maintainable in view of the instructions issued by the Army Headquarters itself. The petitioner has further prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents directing them to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Havildar as he could not have been discharged before the completion of 24 years of service.

(2.) THOUGH the pleadings of the petitioner are quite lengthy but the material pleadings which are relevant for the disposal of the present petition can be summarised in the following manner :-

(3.) THE petitioner further alleges that when he tried to bring the matter to the notice of the higher authorities, instead of taking any action against the Commanding Officer, even the Brigade Commander tried to hush up the matter but in a one sided manner. So much so, the petitioner was withdrawn from Unit No. 322 and he was attached with Unit No. 325 on disciplinary grounds for the reason that the petitioner dared to file an application against his superiors briging to the notice of the high-ups about the illegalities and irregularities being committed by the Commanding Officer. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was allotted a family accommodation w.e.f. 15.10.1993 when the Unit was located at Gwalior. The said Unit was shifted to Chandimandir. The petitioner vacated the family accommodation at Gwalior. Since, he was granted permission to stay with his wife and at the time of moving of the Unit, his wife and family were staying with him and they also accompanied the petitioner to Chandimandir. At Chandimandir also, the petitioner was allotted a family accommodation in which the petitioner started staying. However, in order to humiliate and harass the petitioner, the quarter of the petitioner was raided by military staff because the petitioner had reported about certain irregularities and illegalities being committed by the Commanding Officer. The petitioner was allotted family accommodation in Chandimandir on 10.6.1994. He has a son and a daughter who are school going children. The petitioner made the complaint on 6.9.1994. In order to harass him, the Commanding Officer issued the instructions to the petitioner to vacate the family accommodation. These directions were given on 4.10.1994. The petitioner was allotted accommodation at Gwalior for a period of one year. He had vacated the said accommodation when the Unit moved from Gwalior to Chandimandir. A fresh allotment was made in favour of the petitioner on 10.6.1994 and the petitioner was entitled to retain this accommodation for a period of one year upto 10.6.1995. The petitioner could only be evicted from the accommodation allotted to him under the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971. The directions which were issued to the petitioner by the Commanding Officer on 4.10.1994 requiring him to vacate the family accommodation allotted to him on the ground that he had retained the accommodation for a year starting from 15.10.1993 to 15.10.1994, was totally illegal beyond his authority and without jurisdiction. The petitioner has made out a case that even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the stay of the petitioner in the allotted accommodation in Chandimandir was in excess of the period, he could only be evicted under the Public Premises Act. When the petitioner received the threat of eviction from the family accommodation, he sought an interview with respondents 2 and 3 in this regard but on 22.2.1995, 30/35 persons raided his house so that the petitioner may be harassed. In order to highlight his grievance, the petitioner even tried to seek an interview with the GOC-in-C but could not get the interview. The petitioner was apprehensive that some adverse action might be taken against him. He even filed CWP 13164 of 1995 in the High Court in which he challenged the Court Martial proceedings and the awarding of the sentence upon him. At that time, the statutory appeal of the petitioner was pending. In these circumstances, the writ petition was disposed of on the ground that since the statutory appeal of the petitioner was pending for disposal with the Government, no further action was called for.