JASWANT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was serving in the Indian Army in the rank of Colonel has challenged the order passed by the Ministry of Defence Annexure P-26, dismissing the Post Confirmation Petition under the Army Act,(hereafter referred to as the Act) preferred by the petitioner under Section 164 (2) of the Act, read with para 365 of the Regulations. The petitioner had challenged the proceedings of the General Court Martial initiated against him on 17th November, 2003. It was pleaded by the petitioner that he was 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? charged under Section 52 (f) of the Act accusing him of complicity in land acquisition proceedings. The charge against the petitioner was that he had been instrumental in stalling acquisition proceedings which were considered necessary for serving defence purposes as a part of the land had been purchased by his wife Anjana Thakur whom he wanted to help. The petitioner in a detailed Post Confirmation Petition preferred by him had set out a number of grounds which, according to him were sufficient to set aside the penalty of being cashiered from service imposed upon him. A number of grounds have been urged by the petitioner in this petition that he was not guilty of the offences/charges leveled against him.

(2.) WITHOUT going into the merits of the entire petition, I find from the record that the statutory powers exercised by the Union of India under Section 164 (2) of the Act are not in consonance with law. Although the order purports to be in three pages yet, for all intents and purposes it does not show that the authority has applied its mind to the grounds set out by the petitioner which are in detail and would require consideration of the entire material instead of disposal of the petition by a mere non speaking order by simply observing that proceedings initiated and conducted against the petitioner are in accordance with law and thereafter holding that there is no infirmity in the sentence etc. imposed upon him.

(3.) THE principle of law laid down in these cases does not need any reiteration. Merely stating that a particular provision has been complied with or not, without reference to the material on record will not by itself be sufficient compliance of these principles.