IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13773 of 1993 Date of decision:09.12.2009 Surinder Singh ....Petitioner versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Arun Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Geeta Singhwal, CGSC, for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the order of reduction in rank imposed in a summary proceeding in a Court martial for alleged misconduct that qualified for action under Section 63 of the Army Act. The charge-sheet against the accused is as follows:- “The accused No.1048346X Drf Surinder Singh of 51 Armoured Regiment is charged with:- Army Act AN OMISSION PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD Sec.63 ORDER AND MILITARY DISCIPLINE, in that he, at Ambala Cantt, being Guard Commander at Ammunition Dump Naraingarh Road from 01 Mar. 91 to 31 Mar.91 improperly omitted to apprise JC-122348K Ris Bakshish Singh, the JCO incharge about his having been excused of the night duties by the medical authorities, resulting into lack of proper supervision over the Guard, which resulted in cutting of the fencing of the said Ammunition dump and planting of three bombs.” Civil Writ Petition No.13773 of 1993 - 2 - 2. The petitioner admitted the charge levelled against him and the officer ultimately passed the order reducing him “to the ranks” (Annexure P-3) 3. The challenge mounted by the petitioner against the sentence is that he had actually been taking treatment with ENT Specialist and on a check-up which he had at the hospital on 27.03.1991, he was recommended to be exempted from PT parade and night duty for 5 days. According to the petitioner, he informed his superior officers of the recommendation of the Medical Officer and had also applied for leave on the ground that his son was unwell and he required his attention. The leave, it appears, was not originally granted but later granted for 29.03.1991. According to him, he reported for duty on 30.03.1991 when Shri Bakshish Singh was the person in command and he had detailed him for service from 23.59 hours. According to the petitioner, he performed the duties that night, but he was served with a charge-sheet that he had not informed Bakshish Singh about the fact that the he was excused of the night duties by the medical authorities, resulting into lack of proper supervision over the Guard, which in turn resulted in cutting of the fencing of the Ammunition dump and planting of three bombs. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that even when he admitted to the charge in the summary Court martial proceedings, he had pleaded that he should be given less punishment and when he pleaded guilty he had not been apprised of what he was being made to accept. He had actually carried out the duty from 23.59 hours and the signatures taken from the petitioner as having admitted the Civil Writ Petition No.13773 of 1993 - 3 - charge was in violation of Rule 115. The attempt of the petitioner was therefore to state that he had not understood the implication of what he was admitting and the summary proceedings ought not to have visited him with such a harsh punishment of reduction in rank for a person who had unblemished service of 21 years. 5. The charge contains two elements: (i) he had not apprised Shri Bakshish Singh of the exemption from night duty; and (ii) that by a lack of supervision that resulted there had been a breach of the security vigil in the manner indicated in the charge-sheet. The contention which is now made by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that he had actually reported for duty as detailed by a person in command cannot be true, for, if he had actually been present for duty, he could not have admitted to the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet makes specific reference about the fact of his not having apprised Shri Bakshish Singh of his exemption and therefore, it resulted in lack of supervision. If the person had admitted to the charge-sheet, it shall not lie in his mouth to contend that he made his admission without apprising himself of what he was admitting to. It is a well-known proposition of procedural jurisprudence that a person of full age of understanding who subscribes his signatures to a statement without even properly apprising himself of the recitals, cannot be heard to state that he signed without knowing the recitals. If he is so imprudent as not to take adequate care to apprise himself of the recitals, he shall take the consequences of his own folly. If he had admitted to the charge, it is doubtless that the charge was not anything frivolous or vague. The charge was one of a serious dereliction Civil Writ Petition No.13773 of 1993 - 4 - that resulted in cutting of fencing wire and planting of bombs. The ultimate punishment which the petitioner was visited with is one of reduction of rank and if only there is an objection that the punishment did not correspond to the imputation of charge and proof of such misconduct, it would be permissible to examine the proportionality of punishment. A judicial intervention shall be uncalled for, unless the punishment is so disproportionate that it shocks the judicial conscious or the punishment itself is capricious. The issue of proportionality is too well established through the judicial pronouncements that it requires no further dilation. The ultimate finding of misconduct and the punishment shall stand, for, it is not susceptible to judicial intervention in the fact situation brought out through the contention of the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.12.2009 sanjeev