GEN. OFFICER COMM. IN CHIEF, LUCKNOW AND ORS. versus R.P. SHUKLA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 859 · Decided: 22-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
GEN. OFFICER COMM. IN CHIEF, LUCKNOW AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
R.P. SHUKLA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
MAY 22, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Armed Forces-Sepoyes and Havildar employed on short-term basis-
Misconduct-Summary Court Martial-R.I. for one year/six months-
C 
Dismissal from service-High Court setting aside entire proceedings for 
non-observance of r.180 of Army Rules and directing reinstatement-Held, 
finding of High Court that r.180 was not observed is factually not correct-
On merits, charges against delinquents being serious and grave in nature, 
punishments awarded are not disproportionate or excessive in nature to 
D 
shock conscience of the Court-Terms of their engagement having already 
expired, they could not be reinstated in service-Order passed by Officer 
Commanding, Troops, C.O.D. affirmed-Army Rules-r.180. 
CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4022 of 
1998. · 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.1.1996 of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Petition No. 2611/1992. 
A. Saran, ASG, S. Wasim A. Qadri and Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advs., with 
him for the Appellants. 
The Order of the Court was delivered : 
ORDER 
F 
The present Civil Appeal is directed against the judgment and order 
G 
dt.04.01.1996 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in 
Misc.Petition No. 2611 of 1992. 
We have heard Mr. A. Sharan, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the 
appellants. 
859 
H 
860 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The first respondent died during the pendency of this appeal in this 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Court. Though his Lrs. were impleaded vide Courts Order dt.20.04.2006 in 
l.A.No.2, there is no response on their behalf. Notice has also been served 
on respondent Nos. l(i), l(ii), 2 and 3. In spite of service, none appears for 
the said respondents. 
The respondents were found guilty by the Officer Commanding, 
Troops, C.O.D., Jabalpur by order dt.18.04.1992. They were sentenced to 
undergo RI for one year and dismissal from service. This was in respect of 
respondent No. I. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo RI 
for six months each and also suffered dismissal from service. All the three 
respondents approached the High Court on 05.08.1992 by way of Writ 
Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India being 
Miscellaneous Petition No.2611 of 1992 with a grievance that the appellant 
had not decided the appeal till the date of filing of the Writ Petition. 
However, during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the appeal filed by the 
respondents was rejected by the appellant No. I herein. The appellants 
challenged the legality and validity of the proceedings of the Summary Court 
Martial and award of the punishment by the Summary Court Martial on 
various grounds. The appellants contested the said Writ Petition by filing a 
detailed affidavit. 
The High Court vide its judgment dt. 04.01.1996 allowed the Writ 
Petition on the sole ground of non-observance of Army Rule 180 and 
accordingly set aside the entire proceedings of Summary Court Martial 
including charge sheet dt. 09.04.1992 and also set aside the punishment 
awarded to the respondents therein with a further direction that they will be 
entitled to be reinstated in the services. Being aggrieved by the above 
judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal in this Court. 
We haye perused the judgment passed by the High Court and also the 
grounds of SLP and the other annexures filed along with the Writ Petition 
and in this appeal. We have also heard the learned ASG appearing on behalf 
of the appellants herein. Since the High Court has disposed of the Writ 
Petition on the ground that Army Rule 180 has not been strictly observed, 
we directed the learned ASG to place before us the entire original records 
of the inquiry and other allied proceedings in order to satisfy ourselves as 
to whether Army Rule l 80 has been adhered to or not. The entire records 
have been placed before us and we have perused the same. A perusal of 
GEN. OFFICER COMM. IN CHIEF, LUCKNOW v. R.P. SHUKLA 
861 
the entire records would clearly show that the Court of Inquiry has strictly 
observed and complied with the Army Rule 180. The finding of the High 
Court, therefore, that Army Rule 180 has not been observed is factually not 
correct and we, therefore, have no option but to set aside the judgment of 
the High Court and affirm the order passed by the Of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.