IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14405 of 2003 NO4275055 N NAIK (CLERK)NIRAJ KUMAR SINGH, SON OF KARAMVIR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOHANPUR, P.S.-DHARHARA, DISTRICT-MUNGER. PRESENTLY WORKING AS NAIK CLERK IN BIHAR REGIMENTAL CENTRE, DANAPUR, CANTT. ------------PETITIONER Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2. COMMANDING OFFICER, 16 BIHAR, C/o 56 APO. 3. SENIOR RECORD OFFICER, BIHAR REGIMENTAL CENTRE, DANAPUR (CANTT.) 4. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE RECORDS, BIHAR REGIMENTAL CENTRE. -------------RESPONDENTS ----------- 5. 25.10.2010 None appears for the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the Union of India is present and has also filed a counter affidavit dated 10.12.2009 copy whereof was not served on the petitioner as he could not be traced and such fact is mentioned in the notice dated 10.12.2009 appended with the counter affidavit. 3. From the brief of the writ case it appears that writ petition was filed through Sri. Sanjay Kumar Griyaghey, Advocate whose office is in Chamber No.84 Bar Council Building which is situate by the side of the High Court. From the notice dated 10.12.2009 it, however, appears that attempt to serve the counter affidavit was made on Sri. Sanjay Kumar and not on Sri. Sanjay Kumar Griyaghey through whom the writ 2 petition was filed on 19.12.2003. 4. From paragraph-1 of the writ petition it appears that petitioner at the relevant time served as Lance Naik (Clerk) in 16 Bihar. He has filed this writ petition praying inter alia to set aside the uncommunicated order bearing letter No. 1017/VIII/67/RA dated 14.10.2000 whereunder he has been awarded the punishment of severe reprimand. He has further prayed in the writ petition to direct the authorities to consider his case for his promotion to the rank of Hawildar with effect from the date of his supercession i.e. October, 2002. By filing counter affidavit the Army authorities have placed on record Appendix-A to Army Order 24/94 the form filled by the Commanding Officer when he proceeded against the petitioner under Army Rule-22 and passed uncommunicated order dated 14.10.2000 punishing the petitioner with severe reprimand after he was found guilty of the offence under Section 63 of the Army Act. Section 63 of the Army Act provides for punishment for any act or omission which is prejudicial to good order and military discipline. In the instant case, petitioner has been punished with severe reprimand as he is alleged to have failed in passing the message received from the Headquarter which caused 3 embarrassment to the unit. From the materials placed with the counter affidavit it does not appear as to what was the message which petitioner was directed to pass on and who gave such message to the petitioner. With the counter affidavit the authorities have also not placed on record the impugned order dated 14.10.2000. 5. From the material placed on record by way of the counter affidavit it does not appear as to who supported the allegation levelled against the petitioner on the basis of which punishment of severe reprimand has been inflicted upon the petitioner. It, however, appears from the counter affidavit that the request of the petitioner for reduction of his punishment was rejected under order dated 16.8.2001, Annexure-B. From perusal of the order dated 16.8.2001, Annexure-B also it does not appear as to what was the message which the petitioner was directed to pass on and who gave such message to him. From Annexure-C to the counter affidavit it however, appears that petitioner has withdrawn his statutory complaint in reference to letter dated 14th April, 2002. 6. Counsel for the Union submitted that such withdrawal of the statutory complaint was made 4 by the petitioner when he was granted promotion on the post of Hawildar (Clerk). 7. Having heard counsel for the Union and perused the pleadings made on behalf of the parties, it is quite evident that punishment of severe reprimand has been imposed on the petitioner for his failure to pass on the message. It, however, does not appear from the material placed on the record that what was the message and who conveyed such message to the petitioner and whether the person who conveyed such message to the petitioner for being passed on was ever examined in the summary court-martial proceeding. It is thus quite evident from the materials placed on record that the material on the basis of which the charge/offence alleged against the petitioner is proved has not been placed on record. It is also quite evident that the order by which he has been punished with the punishment of severe reprimand has also not been placed on record. 8. In the circumstances, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is absolutely without any material and is, accordingly quashed. Ibrar/- (V.N. Sinha, J.) 5