- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India & Ors. v. S.K Sharma .
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The opinion concerns an appeal by the appellants against a judgment of a learned Single Judge. The respondent, Havaldar S.K. Sharma, had filed a writ petition challenging his dismissal from service pursuant to the finding and sentence of a Summary Court Martial dated 4.3.1996.
The charges against the respondent included: (a) making false accusations against his Commanding Officer (alleging failure to act on his application for a railway warrant dated 18.5.1995 and alleging irregularity in allotment of accommodation), and (b) an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline by corresponding to higher officials on service matters without proceeding through authorised channels. The charge-sheet alleged that the respondent made the accusation knowing it to be false. The respondent had served for more than eleven years in the rank of Havildar as an Education Instructor.
Before the Single Judge, it was held that the Summary Court Martial had been wrongly conducted by the Commanding Officer of a different unit; the Single Judge relied on Section 116 of the Army Act and Note 5 of the Manual of Military Law and on a decision reported as Ex. Ha v. Mahipal Singh (55 (1994) DLT 176).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a Summary Court Martial held by the Commanding Officer of a different unit (not the unit to which the accused properly belongs) was legally valid in the facts of this case, in light of Section 116 of the Army Act and Note 5 of the Manual of Military Law (and Regulation 381).
- Whether the convening/holding of the Summary Court Martial complied with the requirements of the Army Rules, specifically whether Rule 37 (dealing with convening of General and District Courts Martial) applies to Summary Court Martial proceedings, and whether reliance on Union of India v. Harish Chandra Goswami was appropriate.
- Whether the punishment awarded (dismissal from service) was disproportionate and susceptible to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution on grounds such as irrationality, arbitrariness or shock to the conscience.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The appellants contended that the learned Single Judge erred in holding the convening order dated 22.2.1996 to be without jurisdiction because it was not issued in terms of Army Rule 37; the Single Judge had relied on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Harish Chandra Goswami to invalidate the convening of the Court Martial in the absence of record showing that the record had been taken by the Commanding Officer.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's separate legal arguments beyond the factual background of his writ petition challenging dismissal arising from the Summary Court Martial.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ex. Ha v. Mahipal Singh; Ex Havildar Mahipal Singh (55 (1994) DLT 176) | Was relied upon below in relation to Note 5 of the Manual of Military Law and the circumstances when a Commanding Officer of a different unit may hold a Summary Court Martial; used by the Single Judge to find the trial by a different unit's CO was illegal. | The court held that reliance on this decision was misplaced in the present case because Regulation 381 (to which Note 5 refers) applies only to trials of deserters. The Court concluded Regulation 381 cannot be applied to offences under Section 56(a) and Section 63 of the Army Act, and therefore the precedent did not support the Single Judge's conclusion on that point. |
| Union of India v. Harish Chandra Goswami, JT 1999 (3) 324 | Established applicability of Rule 37 of the Army Rules in the context of convening General or District Courts Martial; relied upon by the Single Judge to impugn the convening of the court in the absence of requisite records. | The court determined that Harish Chandra Goswami relates to convening of General/District Courts Martial and is not applicable to Summary Court Martial proceedings. The Court emphasized the distinction between the statutory terms “convene/convened” (used for General/District/Summary General Courts Martial) and “held” (used in Section 116 for Summary Court Martial), and held that Rule 106 of the Army Rules governs Summary Court Martial proceedings. Accordingly, reliance on the Harish Chandra Goswami decision was misplaced for invalidating the Summary Court Martial in this case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's reasoning follows a sequence of statutory and rules-based analysis, closely tied to the language of the Army Act and Army Rules as set out in the opinion:
- The court reviewed Section 116 of the Army Act which provides that a Summary Court Martial "may be held by the Commanding Officer of any corps, department or detachment of the regular Army" and that the CO alone shall constitute the Court, with specified attendance by two other persons (officers or JCOs).
- The court examined Note 5 appended in the Manual of Military Law which refers to Regulation 381 of the Army Regulations and then considered Regulation 381 itself. Regulation 381 expressly deals with "Trial of Deserters" and contains operative words indicating it is intended for the trial of deserters and sets conditions when a deserter surrendered to or taken over by another unit may be tried by that unit's CO.
- On that basis the court held that Regulation 381 is manifestly limited to procedures for the trial of deserters and does not provide a general rule permitting a Commanding Officer of a different unit to hold Summary Court Martial for non-desertion offences such as those under Section 56(a) and Section 63 of the Army Act. Therefore, the court found the Single Judge's reliance on Ex. Ha v. Mahipal Singh (which dealt with Note 5/Regulation 381) to be misplaced in this case.
- The court then addressed the legal validity of the convening/holding of the Summary Court Martial. It identified that Rule 37 of the Army Rules governs the convening of General and District Courts Martial and the procedural pre-conditions for such convening (the officer must be satisfied of certain matters before convening). The court contrasted the statutory terminology across Sections 108–116 of the Army Act: Sections dealing with General Court Martial, District Court Martial and Summary General Court Martial use the word "convene/convened", whereas Section 116 (on Summary Court Martial) uses the word "held".
- Because a Summary Court Martial is "held" rather than "convened" in statutory language, the court concluded that Rule 37 (and the Harish Chandra Goswami authority applying Rule 37 to General Court Martial convening) is not directly applicable to Summary Court Martial proceedings. Instead, Rule 106 of the Army Rules governs proceedings of Summary Court Martial (including recording of proceedings and mode of taking evidence).
- Accordingly, the court held that the Single Judge's reliance on Harish Chandra Goswami to invalidate the convening or holding of this Summary Court Martial was misplaced; Rule 106 (and the scheme specific to Summary Court Martial) is the operative rule.
- Separately, the court considered the Single Judge's conclusion on the disproportionality of the punishment. The court reiterated the settled principle that courts ordinarily do not interfere with the adequacy of military punishment but recognised the scope of judicial review under Article 226 where the decision-making process suffers from irrationality, arbitrariness, or where the sentence shocks the conscience of the Court. Having regard to the respondent's length of service (more than eleven years) and the nature of the allegations (not of a very serious nature, as noted by the Single Judge), the court found no fault with the Single Judge's view that the punishment was harsh and disproportionate.
- On the basis of the above, the court reached remedial orders described in the holding: it disagreed with the Single Judge on the two procedural grounds described earlier (reliance on Regulation 381/Ex. Mahipal Singh and on Harish Chandra Goswami/Rule 37), but agreed with the Single Judge on the sentencing aspect and quashed the order on sentence dated 4.3.1996. The court allowed respondents the opportunity to pass a fresh order on sentence in accordance with law, in view of the findings of the Summary Court Martial and the observations made in the opinion.
Holding and Implications
Core Ruling: The appeal is DISPOSED OF in the terms set out in the opinion. The court quashed the order on sentence dated 4.3.1996 and sustained the Single Judge's conclusion regarding disproportionate punishment. The court held that the Single Judge's reliance on Regulation 381 / Ex. Havildar Mahipal Singh (to invalidate the Summary Court Martial on the ground that it was held by a CO of a different unit) was misplaced, and that reliance on Union of India v. Harish Chandra Goswami (and Rule 37) to invalidate the Summary Court Martial was also misplaced because Rule 37 governs convening of General/District Courts Martial while Rule 106 governs Summary Court Martial proceedings.
Direct consequences and immediate implications for the parties:
- The order on sentence dated 4.3.1996 (the dismissal) is quashed.
- It is open to the respondents to pass a fresh order on sentence, in accordance with law, having regard to the findings of the Summary Court Martial and the observations made in this opinion.
- The appeal was disposed of and LPA No. 192/2002 (related proceeding) was also disposed of. There was no order as to costs.
Broader implications: The opinion confines itself to statutory interpretation of the Army Act and Army Rules and to the facts of this case; it does not state or declare any sweeping new precedent beyond the application of the statutes and rules as discussed. The court expressly limited the applicability of Regulation 381 to deserter trials and distinguished the rules applicable to convening versus holding of different kinds of Courts Martial.
Appeal disposed of.
Vijender Jain, J.— This appeal has been preferred by the appellants aggrieved by the judgment of learned Single Judge. Respondent Havaldar S.K Sharma had filed a writ petition aggrieved by his dismissal from service in pursuance to the finding and sentence of a Summary Court Martial dated 4.3.1996
2. The charges against the respondent related to making accusations against his Commanding Officer for failure to take action on his application for railway warrant and other was regarding allotment of accommodation knowing fully well that such accusations were false. The respondent, it seems filed his petition dated 1.6.1995 addressed to the GOC-in-C, Eastern Command, complaining that Lt. Col. K.L Yadav did not take action on his application for railway warrant dated 18.5.1995 The charge-sheet was issued against the respondent that the respondent made this false accusation fully knowing the same to be false. The respondent was further charged with act prejudicial to good order and military discipline by making correspondence to higher officials on service matters without proceeding through authorised channels.
3. The respondent had put in more than 11 years of service in the rank of Havildar as Education Instructor. The learned Single Judge held that in view of Section 116 of the Army Act and Note 5 of the Manual of Military Law, the only exception when a Summary Court Martial was to be held by Commanding Officer of a different unit would be in the case of a deserter and as the respondent-petitioner was admittedly not a deserter, holding of the Summary Court Martial by Commanding Officer of a different Unit was bad in law.
4. The learned Single Judge relying upon a decision of Ex. Ha v. Mahipal Singh…, 55 (1994) DLT 176, observed that the trial of the respondent by the Summary Court Martial after the initial recommendation was made for the trial of the respondent by District Summary Court Martial was illegal. It was noted by the learned Single Judge that the Summary Court Martial could not have been conducted by the Commanding Officer of 1842, Light Regiment, as the respondent belonged to 20, Mountain Division.
5. The respondent was tried by Summary Court Martial on three charges; two charges under Section 56(a) of the Army Act and one charge under Section 63 of the Act. We have perused through Section 116 of the Act which is to the following effect:
“116. Summary Court Martial—(1) A Summary Court Martial may be held by the Commanding Officer of any corps, department or detachment of the regular Army, and he shall alone constitute the Court.
(2) The proceedings shall be attended throughout by two other persons who shall be officers or junior commissioned officers or one of either and who shall not as such, be sworn or affirmed.”
6. Note 5 which has been dealt in Ex Havildar Mahipal Singh's case (supra), which is appended to the section in the publication ‘Manual of Military Law’, Ministry of Defence, reads as follows:
“5. See Regulations Army para 381 for the circumstances under which a CO of a different Unit may hold the trial by SCM of a person subject to Army Act.”
7. Army paragraph Regulation 381 is to the following effect:
“381. Trial of Deserters.—Under normal circumstances trial by Summary Court Martial for desertion will be held by the CO of the unit of the deserter. However, when a deserter or an absentee from a Unit shown in column one of the table below surrenders to, or is taken over by, the Unit shown opposite in column two and is properly attached to and taken on the strength of the latter Unit he may, provided evidence, particularly evidence of identification, is available with the latter Unit, be tried by Summary Court Martial by the OC of that Unit when the Unit shown in column one is serving in high altitude area or overseas or engaged in counter-insurgency operation or active hostilities or Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
In no circumstances will a man be tried by Summary Court Martial held by a CO other than the CO of the Unit to which the man properly belongs; a unit to which the man may be attached subsequent to commission of the offence by him will also be a Unit to which the man properly belongs.”
8. A bare reading of Regulation 381 and the operative words as set out in Regulation 381 makes it manifestly clear that the said regulation is only for the trial of deserters and in an eventuality where a deserter has to be tried by a Summary Court Martial, such deserter has to be tried by the Commanding Officer of that Unit only to which he belongs. How the procedure prescribed under regulation 381 for the trial of deserter can be applied for offences under Section 56(a) and Section 63 of the Act? Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on Ex Havildar Mahipal Singh's case is misplaced.
9. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the learned Single Judge has gone wrong in ordering that the convening order dated 22.2.1996 by the Competent Authority was without jurisdiction as the same was not issued by the Competent Authority in terms of Army Rule 37. The learned Single Judge relying on the judgment of Union of India v. Harish Chandra Goswami, JT 1999 (3) 324 held that in the absence of any record showing that the record having been taken by the Commanding Officer, the convening of the Court Martial was not sustainable in law.
10. We are afraid, the law laid down in Harish Chandra Goswami's case pertains to convening of a General Court Martial. Therefore, the same could not have been applied in relation to holding of the Summary Court Martial. Army Act deals with Courts Martial under Chapter 10. Section 108 deals with the kinds of Courts-martial i.e General Courts Martial, District Courts Martial, Summary General Courts Martial, and Summary Courts Martial. Section 109, 110 and 112 deal with convening of a General Court Martial, a District Court Martial, and a Summary General Court Martial respectively. The word appearing in all the aforesaid Sections is ‘convened/convene’ whereas in Section 116, which deals with Summary Court Martial, the word used is ‘held’ and not ‘convened/convene’. When a General Court Martial, District Court Martial or Summary General Court Martial, as the case may be, has to be convened, Rule 37 of the Army Rules comes into play, which is to the following effect:
“37. Convening of General and District Court Martial.—(1) An officer before convening a general or district Court-martial shall first satisfy himself that the charges to be tried by the Court are for offences within the meaning of the Act, and that the evidence justifies a trial on those charges, and if not so satisfied, shall order the release of the accused, or refer the case to superior authority.
(2) He shall also satisfy himself that the case is a proper one to be tried by the kind of Court Martial which he proposes to convene.
(3) The officer convening a Court-martial shall appoint or detail the officers to form the Court and, may also appoint, or detail such waiting officers as he thinks expedient. He may also, where he considers the services of an interpreter to be necessary, appoint of detail an interpreter to the Court.
(4) The officer convening a Court Martial shall furnish to the senior member of the Court with the original charge-sheet on which the accused is to be tried and, where no Judge Advocate has been appointed, also with a copy of the summary of evidence and the order for the assembly of the Court Martial. He shall also send, to all the other members, copies of the charge-sheet and to the Judge Advocate when one has been appointed, a copy of the charge-sheet and a copy of the summary of evidence.”
11. Once Summary Court Martial has to be held Rule 106 of the Rules will operate the field. Rule 106 is to the following effect:
“106. Proceedings.—(1) The officer holding the trial hereinafter called the Court, shall record, or cause to be recorded (in the Hindi or English language), the transactions of every Summary Court Martial.
(2) The evidence shall be taken down in a narrative form in as nearly as possible the words used; but in any case where the Court considers it material, the question and answer shall be taken down verbatim.”
12. Therefore the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge in Union of India v. Harish Chandra Goswami's case was misplaced as in Harish Chandra Goswami's case, the Supreme Court upheld the applicability of Rule 37 of the Army Rules vis-a-vis cases of General Court Martial. On this ground also the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
13. However, with regard to the finding of the learned Single Judge on the disproportionality of the punishment, we find no fault with the observation of the learned Single Judge. It is a well settled principal of law that normally the Court will not interfere in the adequacy or the inadequacy of the punishment given by the authorities more so the military authorities. However, from the catena of the cases and the ratio emerging out of the decisions on the point, under the power of judicial review, which has to be exercised by the Court in exercising of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court has to take into consideration if the decision making process has suffered either on account of irrationality, arbitrariness or the decision arrived at is one which shocks the conscience of the Court and in such cases the Courts are not without power to look into the disproportionality of punishment awarded. The learned Single Judge has rightly noted that the punishment awarded sounds harsh and disproportionate in view of the fact that the respondent was dismissed from service after putting more than 11 years of service and that the nature of allegations made against him were not of a very serious nature. While setting aside the impugned judgment upsetting the findings of the Summary Court Martial, we sustain the judgment of the learned Single Judge on sentence. The net result would be that the order on sentence dated 4.3.1996 is quashed. It will be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order on sentence, in accordance with law, in view of findings of the Summary Court Martial, keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove.
14. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
15. No order as to costs.
16. In view of the order passed in this writ petition LPA No. 192/2002 is also disposed of.
Appeal disposed of.
Alert