LexCANTONMENT BOARD, JAMMU & ORS. versus JAGAT PAL SINGH CHEEMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 6 S.C.R. 1192 CANTONMENT BOARD, JAMMU & ORS. v. JAGAT PAL SINGH CHEE.MA (Civil Appeal No. 5820 of 2012) AUGUST 9, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] CANTONMENTS ACT, 1924: C ss. 52- Power of Officer Commanding-in-Chief, the command on reference u/s.51 or otherwise - Held: The power conferred by s. 52 in the Officer Commanding-in-Chief, the Command, is a power to correct the decisions of the Cantonment Board - It is a power vested in a high functionary 0 of the Cantonment to be exercised for the reasons spelt out by the statute - Therefore, the power conferred by the first part of s. 52 should not be, in any manner, curtailed by reading a limit thereon so as to exclude from its purview the matters that may have reached the specified authority by way of an invalid or incompetent reference. E The respondent, employed as a Section Officer with the appellant-Cantonment Board, consequent upon a departmental inquiry, was removed from service by order dated 6.9.1997. On the direction of the High Court in a writ F petition filed by the employee, the Cantonment Board in its meeting held on 18.5.2001 reconsidered the enquiry report. The President of the Cantonment Board did not subscribe to the majority view to set aside the removal of the employee. The matter was referred to the Officer G Commanding in-Chief, the Command, who affirmed the penalty of removal of the respondent from service. The writ petition filed by the employee was allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court holding that the Officer Commanding-in-Chief, the Command was not vested H 1192 CANTONMENT BOARD, JAMMU & ORS. v. JAGAT 1193 PAL SINGH CHEEMA with any power to annul the decision of the Cantonment A Board. The letters patent appeal of the Cantonment Board was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court holding that the reference was not authorised and in consonance with the provisions of s.51 of the Cantonment Boards Act, 1924. B Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 52 of the Cantonment Boards Act, 1924 (the Act) is in two parts. The first part deals with the powers of the Officer Commanding-in-Chief, the Command, in respect of decisions of the Board that may C have come to his notice or placed before him otherwise than by way of a reference made by the President of the Board u/s. 51 (1 ). The second part of Section specifically deals with the power of the Officer Commanding-in-Chief, the Command, to deal with the decisions of the Board D which have come before him by way of a reference made u/s. 51 (1) of the Act. Both parts of Section 52 authorize the Officer Commanding-in-Chief, the Command, to annul a decision of the Board. [para 9] [1201-G-H; 1202-A-B] 1.2. The power conferred by s. 52 in the Officer Commanding .. in-Chief, the Command, is a power to correct the decisions of the Cantonment Board. The necessity for such corrections may arise in myriad situations and the difference in the mode and manner in which such matters may reach the Officer Commanding- in-Chief, the Command, namely, by way of reference u/s. 51 or otherwise, cannot be determinative of the contours E F for exercise of the power. It is a power vested in a high functionary of the Cantonment to be exercised for the reasons spelt out by the statute. Therefore, in the G considered view of this Court, the power conferred by the first part. of s. 52 should not be, in any manner, curtailed by reading a limit thereon so as to exclude from its purview matters that may have reached the specified H 1194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6·S.C.R. A authority by way of an invalid or incompetent reference. [Para 12] [1203-C-F] 1.3. In the instant case, the order dated 22.11.2001 passed by the Officer Commanding-in-Chief, the Command, which was under challenge before the High B Court, specifically recites that the power is being exercised u/s. 52(1) of the Act. The said provision deals with matters/decisions of the Board that may have come before the Officer Commanding-in-Chief, the Command, otherwise than by way of reference u/s. 51. The President C of the Board while referring the decision of the Board dated 18.5.2001 to the Officer Commanding-in-Chief, the Command, did not record any satisfaction that the majority decision of the Board was prejudicial to the health, welfare, discipline or security of the forces and D the reasons therefor. Thus, the reference mad
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.