SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the Petitioner for quashing entire proceedings of Summary Court Martial including an order of conviction and sentence annexed at Annexure PI and for declaration that holding of Summary Court Martial, issuance of charge sheet, finding of guilt against the Petitioner and award of sentence are null and void. A direction is also sought against the Respondents to treat the Petitioner as having retired in due course with effect from February 28, 2001 by issuing an appropriate order by releasing all terminal benefits. Adequate compensation is also demanded for harassment meted out to the Petitioner by the Respondent-authorities.

(2.) The Petitioner joined Indian Army in 1981. At the relevant time, he was serving as Naik (TS) and was posted at village Holta (Palampur), District Kangra. On August 10, 1998, he was ordered to carry convoy protection party with salvage stores to Pathankot on August 11, 1998. On that day, at about 8 a.m. he started from Palampur arrd proceeded towards Pathankot. At about 10.30 a.m., he halted his truck to give pass to a incoming bus, which was at a distance of about 1.5 to 2 Kms. beyond Gaggal and started again. While negotiating a curve, according to the Petitioner, the steering of the truck got locked and the vehicle fell in Banoi Khud. The accident resulted in several deaths and personal injuries. A Court of Inquiry was instituted against him. Meanwhile, a First Information Report was lodged with the police by the Army Court of Inquiry on September 26, 1998. A reply to the questionnaire was sent to Court of Inquiry. As per the averment of the Petitioner, the Court of Inquiry gave sketchy opinion and forWarded it. No action was, however, taken on the basis of First Information Report. On March 1, 2000, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Naik. On January 29, 2001, a charge-sheet was prepared and two charges were levelled against him. On February 2, 2001, ari order was passed for trial by Summary Court Martial and finally by an order impugned in the present petition, the Petitioner was held guilty and was sentenced by the Court Martial, the operative part of which reads as under:

(3.) The charges levelled against the Petitioner were that there was rashness and negligence in driving the vehicle. Because of such rashness and negligence on the part of the Petitioner, an accident took place. Seven persons lost their lives and fifteen persons were injured. According to Respondents, the Petitioner at the Summary Court Martial pleaded guilty to the charge and prayed for mercy. His plea of guilt was accepted and punishment was imposed upon him. The said order is challenged by the Petitioner in the present petition.