Major Suresh Chand Mehra vs Defence Secretary (U.O.I.) And … on 13 November, 1990

           PETITIONER:
MAJOR SURESH CHAND MEHRA

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
DEFENCE SECRETARY (U.O.I.) AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/11/1990

BENCH:
MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ)
BENCH:
MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ)
KANIA, M.H.

CITATION:
 1991 AIR  483		  1990 SCR  Supl. (3)  48
 1991 SCC  (2) 198	  JT 1990 (4)	590
 1990 SCALE  (2)1102


ACT:
    Army  Act, 1950/Army Rules, 1954  Sections 80,  83,	 84,
85/Rules  22,  25, 53,	177---Commanding  Officer  directing
disciplinary  action against a Major--Proceedings  initiated
and  summary trial ordered-Major opting to accept the  award
of    Court   Martial	 reprimand    recommended--Affecting
promotion--Validity of proceedings.



HEADNOTE:
    The	 petitioner was commissioned in the Indian  Army  in
January	 1959  and was promoted to the substantive  rank  of
Major  on  March 11, 1983. In January 1986,  the  petitioner
joined	63rd Fd. Regiment. The 24th Rising Day of  the	Unit
fell  on September 1, 1986. In connection with the  celebra-
tions of the said Day, the petitioner went to respondent No.
2,  Regimental Medical officer of the Unit, at	about  10.30
p.m. on 29.8.86 to pursuade him loan his steel almirah,	 for
two  or	 three days. Respondent No. 2 refused  to  loan	 the
Almirah to the Petitioner which led to hot exchange of words
between them at about 11.00 p.m. Thereupon Respondent No.  2
lodged	a complaint with the Commanding Officer that he	 had
been beaten by the petitioner. The Commanding Officer visit-
ed the quarters of the Respondent No. 2 at about 15  minutes
past  midnight of 29/30th August 1986. He made some sort  of
inquiries at that time and made a noting that the accusation
made  by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner was  unsub-
stantiated.  It	 appears Respondent No. 2 at that  point  of
time was not able to participate in the investigation due to
head injuries received by him. However the documents  reveal
that respondent No. 2 had to be hospitalised as a result  of
injuries received by him at the hands of the petitioner.  In
or  about September 1986, a staff court of inquiry was	held
which  opined  that due to contradictions and lack  of	evi-
dence,	it was not possible to pin-point the blame  for	 in-
juries	sustained  by respondent No. 2. The  proceedings  of
the  court of inquiry were later reviewed by the  Commanders
in chain upto General Officer Commanding 4 Corps who came to
the  conclusion	 that there  was  sufficient  circumstantial
evidence,  corroborated by independent evidence of the	head
injuries  suffered  by	respondent No. 2  showing  that	 the
petitioner  was	 responsible for the  same.  The  Commanding
officers,  therefore, inter alia directed that	disciplinary
action be taken against the petitioner for causing  injuries
to respondent No. 2
49
and  further  the  case be dealt with summarily	 by  GOC,  2
Mountain Division. Accordingly Disciplinary proceedings were
initiated  and a summary of evidence against the  petitioner
was  recorded. After recording the evidence, the  Commanding
Officer	 remanded  the	petitioner to the  GOC,	 2  Mountain
Division,  for	summary trial under section 84 of  the	Army
Act, 1950. The petitioner was attached to 54 Fd Regiment for
purposes of completing the disciplinary action against	him.
At  the trial, the petitioner pleaded not guilty,  but	when
asked  by the GOC as to whether he would elect to  face	 the
trial by the General Court Martial or would accept the award
passed	by the General Officer Commanding, 2 Mountain  Divi-
sion,  the petitioner opted to accept the award of the	GOC.
The  petitioner	 was  thereupon awarded	 the  punishment  of
severe	reprimand. By the instant petition under Article  32
the petitioner seeks the quashing of the sentence of 'severe
reprimand', as according to him his promotion is held up  on
that account.
Dismissing the petition, this Court,
    HELD:  A perusal of sub-rule (i) of Rule 22	 shows	that
the rule deals with the charges against a person subject  to
the Army Act other than officers. Admittedly, the petitioner
in the instant case was an officer and hence, the provisions
of  Rule  22 had no application to it. It is Rule  25  which
lays  down the procedure in respect of the  charges  against
the officers and it contains no provisions analogus to	sub-
rule (2) of Rule 22 of the Army Rules. In view of this, Rule
22 does not come into play at all. [53B-D]
    The provisions of sub-rule (i) of the Rule 177 show that
the inquiry must be by an assembly of officers of the  ranks
described in sub-rule (1) and the purpose of this inquiry is
merely	to  collect evidence and if so required,  to  report
with regard to any matter which may be referred to the	said
officers.  This	 is merely in the nature  of  a	 preliminary
investigation and cannot be equated with a trial. [53F]
    From his record it appears that, apart from his  impetu-
ousness exhibited by the incident in question, the petition-
er  is considered by his superiors to be a good officer	 and
after a reasonable time, the army authorities could consider
him  for promotion if permissible under the law,  the  rules
and the practice followed in the army. [54F]



JUDGMENT: