IC-56663X COL ANIL KUMAR GUPTA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 9 S.C.R. 700 · Decided: 07-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
IC-56663X COL ANIL KUMAR
GUPTA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8968 of 2019)
NOVEMBER 07,2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
Army Act, 1950: s.122 – Limitation – In terms of s.122 of the
Army Act, no trial by Court Martial of any person subject to the
Army Act, for any offence could be commenced after the expiration
of a period of three years, and such period would commence on the
date of offence or where the commission of the offence was not
known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the authority
competent to initiate action, the first day on which such offence
comes to the knowledge of such person or authority, whichever is
earlier – In the instant case, aggrieved army officer wrote a letter
to concerned authority that he was aware that appellant-army
officer was sending indecent messages to his wife which were
sexually explicit in nature and that he had reasonable cause to
believe that the appellant and his wife had indulged in illegitimate
physical relationship with each other – The date on which letter
was written would be the crucial date on which the aggrieved person
had the knowledge about the commission of the alleged offence –
The time started running from the said date for the purpose of s.122
of the Act – Hence for the purpose of s.122, the two dates will be
relevant i.e., the date when the alleged offence comes to the
knowledge of the person aggrieved and the date on which the
authority competent to initiate action comes to know about the
alleged offence – Trial by the General Court Martial began after
three years and therefore was clearly barred under s.122 of the Act
– The said proceedings are quashed – However, as per the well
settled legal position, the power of judicial review in the matter of
disciplinary proceedings is extremely limited – It is circumscribed
by the limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading
to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice –
The power of judicial review is an evaluation of the decision-making
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 700
700
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
701
process and not of the merits of the decision itself – Therefore, the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant pursuant
to the chargesheet shall continue in accordance with law –
Administrative law – Judicial review.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. For the purpose of Section 122, the two dates
will be relevant i.e., the date when the alleged offence comes to
the knowledge of the person aggrieved and the date on which
the authority competent to initiate action comes to know about
the alleged offence. As per Section 3(xvii) “offence” means any
act or omission punishable under the said Act and includes a civil
offence as defined in Section 3(ii) which means an offence triable
by a criminal court. Chapter-VI of the Army Act deals with the
offences. Section 45 which falls under the said Chapter states
that Army officer, junior commissioner officer or warrant officer
who behaves in a manner unbecoming his position and the
character expected of him shall be liable to suffer punishment as
prescribed therein. [Para 8][706-F-H; 707-A]
2. In the instant case, having regard to the contents of the
letter dated 13.08.2015 written by the aggrieved person to the
concerned authority, it clearly transpires that he was aware of
the alleged act of the appellant having stolen the affection of his
wife on the date of the said letter. He had specifically mentioned
in the said letter that it was for bringing to the notice of the
concerned authority about the appellant’s act of stealing affection
of his wife. He had further alleged therein that the appellant was
sending indecent messages to his wife which were sexually
explicit in nature and that he had reasonable cause to believe
that the appellant and his wife had indulged in illegitimate physical
relationship with each other. Therefore, the date 13.08.2015
would be the crucial date on which the aggrieved person had the
knowledge about the commission of the alleged offence.
Therefore the time had started running from the said date for the
purpose of Section 122 of the said Act. The Convening Authority
having directed the trial by General Court Martial vide order
dated 22.11.2018, the same was clearly beyond three years and
therefore barred under Section 122 of the Act. However, as per
IC-56663X COL ANIL KUMAR GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA &
ORS.
A
B

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.