UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal by the Union of India and its officer is directed against judgment and order dated 06.07.2001 rendered by the learned Writ Court in SWP No. 692/1998 holding that in the absence of issuance of charge sheet apprising the petitioner-respondent of the charges, the punishment of rigorous imprisonment of 6 months coupled with dismissal is bad. The view taken by the learned Writ Court culminates in the concluding para of the judgment which reads thus:-

(2.) Against the order dated 04.04.1992 and the appellate order the petitioner-respondent preferred a writ petition relatable to the instant appeal. As the writ petition has been allowed by the learned Writ Court, feeling aggrieved the Union of India and its Officer has challenged the judgment and order dated 06.07.2001 in the present proceedings.

(3.) Mr. Rajneesh Raina, learned CGSC has challenged the finding recorded by the learned Writ Court and has drawn our attention to the charge sheet dated 12.03.1992 which clearly reveals the charges against the petitioner-respondent. According to the learned counsel it is spelt out that he was granted 14 days casual leave from 23.09.1991 to 06.10.1991 and he failed without sufficient cause to rejoin the Unit on expiry of the said leave. He voluntarily re-joined on 06.03.1992 at 16.00 hours. He has then made a reference to the summary of evidence and the statements made by PW1 Sub Piar Singh of C-Coy; 15 Grenadiers, PW2 Hav. Kuldip Singh and PW3 Co. Hav. Major (CHM) Raj Kumar, The petitioner - respondent was given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses but it was not availed He has then made a reference to the questionnaire Annexure P-C. with the writ record where the petitioner-respondent has in response to Question No. 1. "whether he pleads guilty", has recorded the expression with his own hands as "guilty" There is a certificate issued by Col. Rakesh Berry, certifying that before recording the plea of guilty offered by the accused, the court explained to the accused the meaning of the charge to which he has pleaded guilty and he accepted that he understands the nature of the charge to which he had pleaded guilty. He was also informed the consequences which were to follow by pleading guilty and the Court have recorded satisfaction that the accused understood the charge and the effect of his pleading guilty. Accordingly it was certified that the provisions of army Rule 115(e) are complied with. In para 2 again the petitioner- respondent say, "I accept my fault and pleads for lenient view". He also declined to call any witness in his defence. All this has led to the passing of order dated 04.04.1992 inflicting sentence to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and also dismissal from service. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner- respondent by filing appeal (Annexure P-F) and the Chief of the Army Staff vide order dated 15.07.1997 has dismissed the same (Annexure P-G) by holding that the gravity of the offence and the corresponding severity of the punishment relates to the fact that the unit was deployed on active service in counter-insurgency operations in Jammu and Kashmir which the individual attempted to avoid by remaining absent without leave.