Union Of India vs P.S.Gill

2. In the year 2005, the Chief of the Army Staff directed an investigation by the Court of Inquiry into the allegations pertaining to irregularities in procurement of ration, as a result of which the quality of supplies for the troops was compromised. A Court of Inquiry was convened on 10.10.2005 by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief (GOC-in-C) Western Command to identify the Army personnel responsible for the aforementioned 1 irregularities. Twenty-three witnesses were examined by the Court of Inquiry. The Court of Inquiry identified Twelve Army personnel who were prima facie responsible for the said improprieties. The Respondent who was working as the Chief Director of Purchase (CDP), Army Purchase Organisation, Ministry of Defence was one out of the twelve persons against whom a prima facie case was found. Disciplinary action was also initiated against the Respondent by the GOC-in-C, Western Command on 14.06.2006 which was challenged by the Respondent by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi. By an order dated 11.01.2007, the High Court quashed the Court of Inquiry on the ground that Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954 (hereinafter, ‘the Army Rules’) was violated. However, an option was given to the Appellants to either hold a fresh Court of Inquiry after complying with Rule 180 of the Army Rules or to proceed directly under Rule 22 by hearing the charge without relying on the Court of Inquiry. The Court of Inquiry was re-constituted pursuant to the option given by the High Court. Later, the Appellants sought a modification of the order dated 29.07.2008 and informed the High Court that proceedings would be initiated under Rule 22 of the Army Rules since most of the 2 | Page officers involved had already retired and that it would be difficult to re-constitute a Court of Inquiry. The High Court permitted the Appellants to proceed under Rule 22 with the condition that no reliance can be placed on the old Court of Inquiry. The order of the Chief of the Army Staff by which cognizance was taken of the offences and the attachment order issued on 26.09.2008 were the subject matter of another Writ Petition filed by the Respondent in the High Court of Delhi, which was dismissed on 03.10.2008.

4. The Tribunal held that a prima facie case to proceed against the Respondent by a General Court Martial was not made out. The Tribunal was of the opinion that even if the entirety of evidence of the prosecution is taken to be true, no offence was made out against the Respondent. The 4 | Page Appellants made an attempt to obtain leave to Appeal under Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’) to approach this Court, which was not entertained. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the above Appeal is filed.

(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;

(h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for default or any order passed by it ex parte; and

(5) The Tribunal shall decide both questions of law and facts that may be raised before it.

(3) The Tribunal shall have power to grant bail to any person accused of an offence and in military custody, with or without any conditions which it considers necessary: Provided that no accused person shall be so released if there appears reasonable ground for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

(c) there was a material irregularity in the course of the trial resulting in miscarriage of justice, but, in any other case, may dismiss the appeal where the Tribunal considers that no miscarriage of justice is likely to be caused or has actually resulted to the appellant:

15 | P a g e

(d) release the appellant, if sentenced to imprisonment, on parole with or without conditions;

(e) suspend a sentence of imprisonment;

(iii) (iii) leave of any kind;

(iv) (iv) summary court martial except where the punishment is of dismissal or imprisonment for more than three months;

16. Any matter relating to the conditions of service falls within the definition of ‘service matters’ under Section 3

18 | P a g e “to stand in some relation; to have bearing or concern; to pertain; refer; to bring into association with or connection with; ‘with to’.”

18. It is clear from the above that any proceeding which leads to an order of termination would fall within the expression ‘relating to conditions of service’. In any event, the proceedings initiated against the Respondent cannot be said to be not related to his service. A final order to be passed by the General Court Martial, apart from the imposition of other penalties, might have led to the termination of the service of the Respondent.

20. We are also conscious that the object with which the Act was made is to provide adjudication of complaints and disputes regarding service matters and not only appeals against the verdicts of the Court 3 Mantri Technozone v. Forward Foundation, 2019 SCC Online SC 322 (3JB) 19 | P a g e Martial. It is trite law that statement of objects and reasons can be used as a tool for interpretation 4. The sequitur of the above discussion is that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction.

21. Regarding the charges sought to be framed against the Respondent, we do not find any error in the approach of the Tribunal. The material on record was perused by the Tribunal to come to a conclusion that no prima facie case is made out against the Respondent. We do not see any reason to interfere with the said findings.

22. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.