Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MAJOR SURESH CHAND MEHRA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DEFENCE SECRETARY (U.O.I.) AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT13/11/1990
BENCH:
MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ)
BENCH:
MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ)
KANIA, M.H.
CITATION:
1991 AIR 483 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 48
1991 SCC (2) 198 JT 1990 (4) 590
1990 SCALE (2)1102
ACT:
Army Act, 1950/Army Rules, 1954 Sections 80, 83, 84,
85/Rules 22, 25, 53, 177---Commanding Officer directing
disciplinary action against a Major--Proceedings initiated
and summary trial ordered-Major opting to accept the award
of Court Martial reprimand recommended--Affecting
promotion--Validity of proceedings.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army in
January 1959 and was promoted to the substantive rank of
Major on March 11, 1983. In January 1986, the petitioner
joined 63rd Fd. Regiment. The 24th Rising Day of the Unit
fell on September 1, 1986. In connection with the celebra-
tions of the said Day, the petitioner went to respondent No.
2, Regimental Medical officer of the Unit, at about 10.30
p.m. on 29.8.86 to pursuade him loan his steel almirah, for
two or three days. Respondent No. 2 refused to loan the
Almirah to the Petitioner which led to hot exchange of words
between them at about 11.00 p.m. Thereupon Respondent No. 2
lodged a complaint with the Commanding Officer that he had
been beaten by the petitioner. The Commanding Officer visit-
ed the quarters of the Respondent No. 2 at about 15 minutes
past midnight of 29/30th August 1986. He made some sort of
inquiries at that time and made a noting that the accusation
made by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner was unsub-
stantiated. It appears Respondent No. 2 at that point of
time was not able to participate in the investigation due to
head injuries received by him. However the documents reveal
that respondent No. 2 had to be hospitalised as a result of
injuries received by him at the hands of the petitioner. In
or about September 1986, a staff court of inquiry was held
which opined that due to contradictions and lack of evi-
dence, it was not possible to pin-point the blame for in-
juries sustained by respondent No. 2. The proceedings of
the court of inquiry were later reviewed by the Commanders
in chain upto General Officer Commanding 4 Corps who came to
the conclusion that there was sufficient circumstantial
evidence, corroborated by independent evidence of the head
injuries suffered by respondent No. 2 showing that the
petitioner was responsible for the same. The Commanding
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
officers, therefore, inter alia directed that disciplinary
action be taken against the petitioner for causing injuries
to respondent No. 2
49
and further the case be dealt with summarily by GOC, 2
Mountain Division. Accordingly Disciplinary proceedings were
initiated and a summary of evidence against the petitioner
was recorded. After recording the evidence, the Commanding
Officer remanded the petitioner to the GOC, 2 Mountain
Division, for summary trial under section 84 of the Army
Act, 1950. The petitioner was attached to 54 Fd Regiment for
purposes of completing the disciplinary action against him.
At the trial, the petitioner pleaded not guilty, but when
asked by the GOC as to whether he would elect to face the
trial by the General Court Martial or would accept the award
passed by the General Officer Commanding, 2 Mountain Divi-
sion, the petitioner opted to accept the award of the GOC.
The petitioner was thereupon awarded the punishment of
severe reprimand. By the instant petition under Article 32
the petitioner seeks the quashing of the sentence of ’severe
reprimand’, as according to him his promotion is held up on
that account.
Dismissing the petition, this Court,
HELD: A perusal of sub-rule (i) of Rule 22 shows that
the rule deals with the charges against a person subject to
the Army Act other than officers. Admittedly, the petitioner
in the instant case was an officer and hence, the provisions
of Rule 22 had no application to it. It is Rule 25 which
lays down the procedure in respect of the charges against
the officers and it contains no provisions analogus to sub-
rule (2) of Rule 22 of the Army Rules. In view of this, Rule
22 does not come into play at all. [53B-D]
The provisions of sub-rule (i) of the Rule 177 show that
the inquiry must be by an assembly of officers of the ranks
described in sub-rule (1) and the purpose of this inquiry is
merely to collect evidence and if so required, to report
with regard to any matter which may be referred to the said
officers. This is merely in the nature of a preliminary
investigation and cannot be equated with a trial. [53F]
From his record it appears that, apart from his impetu-
ousness exhibited by the incident in question, the petition-
er is considered by his superiors to be a good officer and
after a reasonable time, the army authorities could consider
him for promotion if permissible under the law, the rules
and the practice followed in the army. [54F]
JUDGMENT: