UNION OF INDIA Vs. AYODHYA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a writ petition, petitioner-respondent challenged the summary Court-martial verdict sentencing him to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment in civil prison and also terminating his service on this count. Petitioner-respondent also prayed for quashing of the order by which the appeal filed by him was rejected. By the judgment and order under appeal, the order terminating the service of petitioner-respondent was not interfered with, but a direction was given that petitionerrespondent shall appear before the Commanding Officer of the unit when he shall be at liberty to prove his defence, with a further direction upon the Commanding Officer to conduct an enquiry after affording a prospective hearing. The Writ Court directed that the relief to which petitioner-respondent is entitled, would depend upon the outcome of the enquiry. The Writ Court further fixed a date for appearing of petitioner-respondent before the concerned officer and directed completion of the enquiry within three months from the date thereof. This was done proceeding on the basis that petitioner-respondent was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing since the proceedings were concluded in one day. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants herein.

(2.) THE principal contention of the appellants in the appeal is that they have acted strictly in accordance with rules governing the field and there was, and is, no scope for directing a further enquiry in respect of matters which have been enquired into in accordance with rules and concluded strictly in accordance therewith.

(3.) THE undisputed facts of this case are that, on October 5, 1982, petitioner-respondent joined the Army. In the month of december, 1991, he was a Gunner in the Army, attached to 18/12 Field Regiment. He was then, thus, not an officer in the army. Petitioner-respondent approached for leave for the purpose of attending his sister's marriage to be performed on december 11, 1991. Accordingly, casual leave with effect from december 9, 1991 was accorded to him. By telegram sent by petitioner-respondent and received by the appropriate authority on December 10, 1991, petitioner-respondent held out that the marriage has been shifted to December 15, 1991 with a request to extend the leave. Accordingly, his leave was extended till december 26, 1991. By another telegram received by the appropriate authority on December 18, 1991, petitionerrespondent purported to hold out that his wife was serious and, accordingly, sought extension of leave by 20 days. By a telegram, the date of which is not on record of this case, petitioner-respondent was purportedly informed that he has not been sanctioned leave as was requested for. Petitionerrespondent on January 6, 1992 rejoined duty. In the meantime, since petitioner-respondent did not join on December 27, 1991, apprehension warrant was issued on December 28, 1991 which was cancelled on January 9, 1992.