IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 36 of 2007 Date of decision: 26.12.2011 1. The Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. 2. The Chief of Army Staff, Army Headquarters, New Delhi. 3. The G.O.C. in-Command HQ Northern Command, Udhampur. 4. Col. WJB Sturgeon, OC Troops 53 Inf Bde Camp C/O 56 APO. …..Appellants Versus 1. Shri Mehar Singh Manhas, s/o Shri Illachi Ram Manhas, retired as Sepoy No.4, DET Western Command IS Group c/o Station HQ Shimla-171003, resident of Village & P.O. Channaur, Teh. Dehra, District Kangra. ….. Respondents LETTERS PATENT APPEAL UNDER CLAUSE 10 OF LETTER PATENT ACT Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellants: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. For the respondent: Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J(oral) 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.5.2007, passed by the learned 2 Single Judge, whereby he partly allowed the writ petition and quashed the order whereby the penalty of reduction to the ranks imposed upon the respondent (writ petitioner) vide order dated 14.7.1998. 2. The writ petitioner was recruited as a Sepoy in the Indian Army on 8.4.1980. He was promoted as Naik on 1.1.1988 and was subsequently promoted to the rank of Havildar on 1.1.1991. He was posted with the Field Security Company, 8, Mountain Division w.e.f. 14.1.1997 and was deputed to perform duties with 53 Infantry Brigade. During the period when the writ petitioner was deputed with 53 Infantry Brigade, he was charged under Section 41(1) of the Army Act, 1950 for the following misconduct:- “He at field, on 01 June, 98, when ordered by IC-41475Y Maj NK Airy BM HQ 53 Inf Bde not to proceed on any operation since there were orders from HQ 28 Inf Div to this effect to which he replied that “Main yahan par roti todne ke liye nahi hun aur mein to operation par jaunga” words to that effect and proceeded for the operation.” 3. The gravamen of the charge against the writ petitioner was that he had violated the specific instruction given by the Commanding Officer of his Unit that he should not proceed for operation. He used language which is not expected in a disciplined force and violated the expressed directions of the 3 Commanding Officer. Thereafter Summary Court Martial was held and the petitioner was reduced to the ranks by the impugned orders. 4. It has been contended by Shri Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India that in a disciplined force like the army, no person should be permitted to violate the orders of senior official and it is for the Commanding Officer to decide which official should proceed on active duties and who should stay behind. 5. We are in total agreement with the contention of Shri Sandeep Sharma that normally in the armed forces no person should be allowed to flout the directions of the senior officials. But when we read the words, which are attributed to the writ petitioner, it is apparent that he was agitated by the fact that he was not being sent for active operation duties and was being asked to stay back. There is no other blemish in the record of the writ petitioner. He has in fact since retired from service. During the Summary Court Martial proceedings, the writ petitioner had expressed his regret and begged for forgiveness from the Unit. Even if we accept that these were the words stated by the writ petitioner, these words only indicate that the writ petitioner was keen to go for active operation in duties and did not want to be left 4 behind. He may in a sense be guilty of violating the orders of his superior official but the punishment of reduction to the ranks in this case is highly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against him. 6. Every violation has to be viewed in the context in which it is made. Here is a serviceman who feels hurt when he is asked not to go for active operation duties. Probably he would have been better advised not to have given vent to his anger in the manner in which he has acted but keeping in view the fact that he has retired and his service record is otherwise blemishless, we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the penalty imposed was highly disproportionate. 7. We therefore, find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge December 26, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja) (vt) Judge