COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 6191/2001 (Old No. 11250/1998) No. 15368768-Y, Signal Man, A.N. Singh, S/o Sri Sher Singh, R/o Dhurchu, Post Gaunchh, Tehsil-So, District –Pithoragarh. ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, DHQ Post New Delhi, 2. Commanding Officer, 60 Wireless Experiment Unit, Through 56 Army Post Office. ……Respondents Sri B.S. Adhikari, learne Counsel for the petitioner Learned Standing Counsel (Central Govt.) for the Union of India. 20th February, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of Summary Court Martial and the order dated 14.12.1994, whereby he was awarded punishment of three months’ rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service. 2. Petitioner was enrolled in the Army Corps of Signals on 19.12.1988 and was posted to 60 Wireless Experimental Unit on 21.2.1993. The petitioner proceeded on 13 days’ casual leave with effect from 7.8.1994 to 19.8.1994. But after the expiry of has leave period, the petitioner did not report on his duties. Neither any request for extension of leave period was made nor any reasons for not being able to report on due date was intimated by the petitioner. Accordingly, a Court of Inquiry was ordered by the Unit and the petitioner was declared as deserter. 3. Thereafter, on 22.11.1994 at 11 P.M. the petitioner reported to the Unit after overstaying leave for 95 days. After rejoining Unit, A summary of Evidence was ordered under the provisions of Army Rules and on 29.11.1994 the Summary of Evidence in respect of the petitioner was recorded. A Summary Court Martial was held on 14.12.1994 and the petitioner pleaded himself guilty of the charge made out against him. Punishment of three months’ rigorous imprisonment as well as dismissal from service was awarded to the petitioner vide the impugned order. It is noteworthy that the petitioner was also once convicted by Court Martial on earlier occasion. Moreover, the petitioner has himself pleaded guilty of the charge made out against him. 4. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and after having gone through the material available on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 14.12.1994. The impugned order requires no interference by this Court. 5. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) Prabodh