SANTOKH SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant's Writ Petition SWP No. 1218/1997 questioning his reduction to Rank and dismissal from Service, in terms of the sentence awarded by the Summary Court Martial held at Kargil on the 28th day of February, 1997 on a charge of dishonestly mis-appropriating sixty liters of DHPP 'W' from the Tank of Vehicle BA No. 95D-101745L valuing Rs. 531/-, which had been entrusted to his charge, by selling it in the market, was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated May 30, 2000, aggrieved whereby he has filed this Writ Appeal seeking aside of his conviction and sentence besides the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

(2.) Mrs. Kour, his learned Counsel pressed only one plea in support of the appellant's Appeal urging that the appellant was entitled to be acquitted of the charge and restored his Employment, as his trial stood vitiated, in that, the Officiating Commanding Officer, 166 Field Regiment had no jurisdictional competence to hold the Summary General Court Martial, which, in law could be conducted only by a substantive Commanding Officer.

(3.) Referring to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Army Rules, 1954 and Para 9 of the Defence Service Regulations, M/s K.K. Pangotra and S.S. Chib, learned Union Counsel urged that in terms of the Rules and the provisions of the Defence Service Regulations, in the absence of the Commanding Officer, the Officiating Commanding Officer was competent to hold the appellant's trial, and the findings arrived at and the punishment awarded, by the Summary Court Martial, presided over by the Officiating Commanding Officer, did not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction.