REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

UNION OF INDIA Appellant

V/S

Ex Sepoy Chander Singh Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BABUA RAM AND ORS. V. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UP V. NAND KISHORE SHUKLA AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LIMITED ALL INDIA PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK EMPLOYEES FEDERATION VS. ALL INDIA PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK EMPLOYEES FEDERATION:PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
RAZA BULAND SUGAR CO LIMITED RAMPUR VS. MUNICINAL BOARD RAMPUR [REFERRED TO]
SOM DATT DATTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PVT LIMITED VS. EMPI OYEES OF HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
LT COL PRITHI PAL SINGH BEDI CAPT DHARAM PAL KUKRETY GAPT CHANDER KUMAR CHOPRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BHAGAT RAM VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
R VISWAN MRS NIRMAL CHHIBBAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BABAJI KONDAJI GARAD BABASAHEB RAJARAMJI DAMPURIKAR VS. NASIK MERCHANTS CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT THAKUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA PARMA NANDA VS. PARMA NANDA:STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR G S SODHI LT COL S K DUGGAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. EX CONSTABLE AMRIK SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. ATAL BEHARI SHASTRI [REFERRED TO]
MANORMA VERMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. GIRIRAJ SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. BHAGYO MAL [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR ECIL HYDERABAD VS. B KARUNAKAR [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE VS. AKHLAQ AHMAD [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. SAMARENDRA KISHORE ENDOW [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. RAGHUBIR DAYAL [REFERRED TO]
SITA DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER MADRAS 5 VS. A RADHA KRISHNA MOORTHY [REFERRED TO]
S K GIRI VS. HOME SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN PRASAD GUPTA VS. CONTROLLER PRINTING AND STATIONERY [REFERRED TO]
MALKIAT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SURJIT SINGH CONDUCTOR [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF PATIALA VS. S K SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDER VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
BISHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RAE BARELI KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK VS. BHOLA NATH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. BAKHSHISH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. G GANAYUTHAM [REFERRED TO]
DAYARAM DAYAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
UMA SHANKER PATHAK VS. UNION OF INDIA UOI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.5.1997 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 358/1991 by which the writ petition of the respondent -petitioner has been allowed with cost of Rs. ten thousand and quashing the order of dismissal from service and he has been allowed to be reinstated with full back wages.

(2.) THE respondent -petitioner joined the Indian Army as a combatant Sepoy in the trade of cook on -21.2.83 and when he was on duty on 15.8.1990, some altercation took place and he became very furious and assaulted Naib Subedar Jaswant Singh by giving him a slap. Respondent -petitioner was arrested immediately after the incident and detained in military custody. A summary of evidence was recorded on 17.8.1990 and he was court martialled by summary court martial on 17.9.1990 awarding punishment of dismissal from service and six months' rigorous imprisonment. His representation/appeal etc. were dismissed. However, his writ petition has been allowed by the judgment and order dated 28.5.1997. Hence this appeal by the Union of India and others.

(3.) IN the writ petition, basically two questions were raised. Main thrust of the argument had been on non -compliance of provisions contained in Rule 34 (1) and Rule 115 (2) of the Army Rules, 1956, hereinafter called 'the Rules.' It is not much in dispute that the said rules were not given strict adherence to, though the present appellants claim that the said rules had been substantially complied -with but it is urged that the said rules are directory and not mandatory. Rule 34 reads as under:

Click here to view full judgment.

UNION OF INDIA Vs. EX SEPOY CHANDER SINGH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address