JANAK RAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was enroled in the army as Sepoy on 21st June' 68. He submits that he had worked with sincerity and earned three promotions. In Sept' 84, he applied for premature retirement. This was approved. He reported in the Depot Coy JAK RIF Regiment for completion of discharge formalities. The final settlement account and other formalities were completed on 25th Oct' 85. He was to proceed to his home town on 31st Oct' 85 with sixty days leave commencing from 1st Nov' 85. These facts are stated not only in the writ petition but are also disputed by the respondent Union of India. Though, he was all set to leave for his home town but the destiny distined otherwise. A signal is said to have received from 215 Transit Camp. There was a direction from Army Headquarters to with -hold his discharge as he was required for interrogation. This led to an order of cancellation of his discharge and the appellant was sent to Transit Camp. The appellant was confined in the lock -up of 167 Field Regiment C/o 56 APO. In para 6 of the petition, the appellant submits that he was lodged in the Quarter Guard confinement of 167 Field Regiment and remained in confinement upto 8th April' 86. It is further submits that he was being shifted everyday from the said Regiment to Interrogation Section (South) DET No. 4 Liasion Unit Northern Command C/o 56 APO. He submits that he was being pressurised to give something in writing. He, however, did not comply with this, He submits that in order, to get of the merciless beatings and torture from the persons incharge of interrogation wrote a statement which the above named officers had been dictating to him wherein the petitioner was made to write certain things against himself and against the officer Commanding Maj. Hardev Singh. It is further submitted that due to the physical torture to which he was subjected during the interrogation, his left ear drum was damaged and he lost power of hearing. 'The appellant's eyesight too had been permanently damaged due to focusing of high intensity light upon the eyes of the appellant. He submits that he was given some treatment by army doctors. Such is the submission made in para 6 of the petition. It is submitted that during this long period of detention of six months, he was not put to trial in any forum which are provided under the Army Act. It is submitted that he was not given any chance to prove his innocence. He never came to be convicted by an Criminal court and even the court material was not conducted. Ultimately, it is submitted that he was discharged. This was done under Rule 17 of the Army Rules. The assertion that appellant was subjected to merciless beating and torture and that he lost hearing power and also his eye sight on account of this torture, as indicated above, has been made in para 6 of the petition, For facility of reference, this para is being reproduced below: -

(2.) THE reply submitted to this para be also noticed: -

(3.) THE other aspect of the matter is as to whether the order passed in exercise of power conferred under Army Rule 17, without giving any opportunity to the appellant is sustainable or not.