MAJOR SURESH CHAND MEHRA v. DEFENCE SECRETARY (U.0.1.) AND OTHERS

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 48

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, M.H. KANIA

Case summary

(a) he has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offence by a competent criminal court or by a courtmartial, or has been dealt with summarily under sections 80, 83, 84 and 86, as the case may be, for the offence, or that a charge in respect of the offence has been...

Judgment text

the Judgment of the Court was delivered by kANIA, J. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitu· lion of India praying for an order quashing the sentence of "Severe . Reprimand" imposed on the petitioner by respondent No. 3, Major General B. S. Malik, and for setting aside his attachment with S4th Field Regiment (hereinafter referred to as "Fd. Regiment)". Respon· dent No. 1is the Defence Secretary of the Union of India. Respondent No. 2 is Captain P. R. Dutta and respondent No. 2 is Major General B. S. Malik of Headquarters 12 Corps. t> The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army on January 12, 1969, end was promoted to the substantive rank of Major on March I! , 1983. lil January 1986, the petitioner joined 63rd Fd. Regiment u 'econd in command. The 24th Rising Day of the Unit to which the petitioner was attached fell on September I, 1986. Several guests were invited for the celebration of the occasion. At about 10. 30 p. m.

on August 29, 1986, the petitioner visited the single officers' quarters of the Unit to persuade respondent No. 2, Capt. P. R. Dutta Regimental Medical Officer of the Unit, to loan his steel almirah, taken by him from the Army Stores, for two or three days for use in the guest room of the Unit. Respondent No. 2 refused to loan the said almirah and it appears that there was a hot exchange of words and an altercation p between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 in the latter's quarters at about 11. 00 p. m. On the complaint of respondent No. 2, made on telephone, that he had been beaten up by the petitioner on the head and several other parts of the body and at his request that the commanding officer should visit the quarters and see the injuries sustained by him, the commanding officer visited the single officers' quarters at about 15 minutes past midnight of 29/30th August, 1986. He met the petitioner and respondent No. 2 as well as several other officers of the Unit.

It appears that he made some sort of inquiries at that time and made a noting that the accusation made by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner appeared to be unsubstantiated. A perusal of the documents recording the aforesaid incident pre· S. C. MEHRA vc U. O. L IKANiA, J. J 51 pared by the commanding officer, Col. Satbir Singh, shows that the s le fot tile same. The repgt! made by the Commatnfers ill ehaln a! lw fairly slwws that acc"Otd'ing to them, ~Jtitc1ugll ll! ere was ~uffiaent evidence of pmvo~a1iio11 IJy resf! <>ndent N11, 1. ,. tlie petitioner Mled Iii :;m i111matme and tackless; ma1111er lly laying l1fa Ii~ on tes! l"lldent £ No•, 2. ln these cirrumstances, the OOmgy, 1 Mountain Divi'sioo. fl Certain actions were recmmnended against respondent No. 2 aind Cl')!. Sa:tbit Singh with which we are oot WM«ned, Pui:suant ra this df£ectkm, discipli;rary Pf""'eedlngii weri: inlti«ted and a summary of evidence aga mpleW!

gtlie ~lplillaty a mplaint by him be entertained in a writ petition like this. It was finally urged by Capt. Virendra Kumar that the entire pro~edings held to awart! the punishment of severe reprimand, were bad In h1w bllcau~e i>f mala [ides. We find that this contention is totally bll~less. fli the petition the only allegation made is that it was the p1>lltic11I cl! >ul i>f respondent No. 2 that lead to the trial of the pjl(itll:iner an wber!! to be f11und in the petition nor is there any aH! lgllti m the said political cl e totfllly without foimdation and vague. As often 0 ob~! lrv!! d, a. s allegati n b11ve been ren f severe reprimand awarded to him. No argument was, however, a<! vanced befori: us in this connection. From his record it appears that, apllft fmm his impetuousness exhibited by the incident in question, the pe! itioner is wnsidered by his superiors to be a good officer and after a reason.

able time, the army authorities could consider him for promoti<ln if permissible under the law, the rules and the practice followed in F the army. Nothing has been shown to us which precludes the army 11uthorities from giving him promotion. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. There will be no order as to costs. Y. Lal Petition dismissed.