ROOP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these seven writ petitions, the petitioners, ex-army personnel, are aggrieved by the punishment awarded to them in Court Martial proceeding. They also seek to challenge the validity of the provisions relating to summary court martial under the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954. As vires has been challenged in all the petitions, they were heard together.

(2.) IN Writ Petition No. 2490/1987 petitioner Roop Singh was found by the Duty Officer running from the direction of out-of- bound area at about 0030 hours in the night of 17/18 May, 1987 when he was supposed to be on sentry duty for which he was tried by summary court martial for committing an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline under Section 63 of the Army Act. Before being subjected to court-martial, summary of evidence was recorded in presence of an independent witness, the charge and names of witness were made known to him. The petitioner refused to accept copy of the charge-sheet and the summary of evidence. During summary court-martial proceedings, in the circumstances, charge was read over to him in presence of two witnesses. On completion of the proceedings, he was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment which was later reduced to six months' and dismissed from service on 14. 6. 1987. From the reply of the respondents it appears that the incident had taken place when the unit was posted 1. 5 kms. from the border during 'operation Trident'. An incident had occurred in the neighbourhood in which a woman had been reportedly raped by some army personnel and in the circumstances, instructions had been issued declaring the adjoining villages as 'out-of-bound' area. IN violation of the instructions, the petitioner went to the said area, he was seen in the midnight running from that direction. He took the plea that he had gone to that direction. He took the plea that he had gone to that side to know the password. The reply states that earlier two red ink entries had been made against the petitioner - (i) for absence without leave under Section 39 (a) of the Army Act; and (ii) for committing act prejudicial to good order and military discipline (consuming) liquor under Section 63 of the Army Act. At the relevant time, he had four years and ten months service to his credit including one year as a recruit.

(3.) IN Writ Petition No. 2223/1996, petitioner Pradeep Kumar was enrolled in the Army on 28. 12. 1989. IN course of his deployment with 820 Fd Wksp Coy from 21. 5. 1994 to 24. 8. 1994 for a period of 96 days, he performed his duties on only 22 days, reporting sick six times during the period allegedly to avoid duty. On 8. 8. 1994 he came for morning parade but fell out of ranks without permission and slapped and kicked Sub. Major T. D. Juneja in front of the whole company for which he was charged with the offence of using criminal force to superior officer punishable under Section 40 of the Army Act. Summary of evidence was recorded and he was given opportunity to produce evidence in defence but he did not do so, he rather admitted his guilt. IN course of summary court martial, the charge was explained to him and was supplied with copies of papers and also made aware of the consequences of his pleading guilty, he again pleaded guilty and requested to be forgiven promising that he would not repeat such act in future. Statement was recorded vide Annexure-8. After completion of the proceedings he was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and further dismissed from service on 24. 8. 1994. He sought review of the punishment which was rejected on 2. 11. 1994.