MAJOR RADHA KRISHAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 836 · Decided: 25-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
MAJOR RADHA KRISHAN 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 25, 1996 
· [M.K. MUKHERJEE AND G.B. PATTANAIK, .JJ.] 
Anny Act, 1950: Sections 19, 122, 127. 
A1111y Rules, 1954: Rule 14. 
Seivicc Lau-Army Office,-Misco11ducrTc11ni11ation of service--
Trial-Summary procedure-Bar on account of limitation-Tennination of 
se1vice 011 the ground that trial was impracticable for expily of /imitati011 
period-Held not pennissibi<>-Rule 14 cannot be exercised to get over limita-
tion period--lnexpediency or impracticllbility of t1ial-Basis of satisfaction 
ntust be ,ntisconduct and ot/Jer attending circunistaitces and not any ex-
traneous factor--T o dispenJ~e with a tn'a/ de hors nzisconduct is wholly alien 
ro Rule 14(2). 
Words & Phrases : 
"lnipracticable" -"In11Jossible." and 
11!1iexpedient''--Afeaning of in th(! 
comext of-Anny Act, 1950. 
The appellant, a Major in the Indian Army, was served a notice dated 
December 10, 1990 under Section 19 of the Army Act, 1950 read with Rule 
F 14 of the Army Rules, 1954 calling upon him to show cause why his services 
)I 
should not be terminated for the misconduCt alleged to. have been com-
mitted by him about 7 years prior to the issuance of notice. In the notice 
itself it was stated that the trial for the alleged misconduct was imprac-
ticable having become time barred, and that Chief of Army Staff was of 
the opinion that his retention in service was undesirable. The show cause 
G submitted by appellant was rejected by the authorities. Ou the recommen-
dation of authorities the c.entral Government passed an order dated 
i 
February 28, 1992 terminating the services of the appellant. A Single Judge 
of the High Court. quashed the termination order and directed bis 
reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. On appeal the 
H Division Brnch dismissed appellant's writ petition. Relying on section ll7 
836 
.. 
' MAJ. R: KRISHANv. U.OJ. 
837 
c 
_ 
• 
I 
_ 
'. 
-
. oftlie Act it held that ptiiceedings· imder section 19 of the Act read with A 
Rule ·14 of- the Rules cotild be taken after the ei<pirf of the period' of 
llmita'tion prescribed under Section 122 of the A~t. 
·.-.', \. ,· 
., 
... · Io appeal to this Court it was contended for the appellant that (i) 
as the appellant's trial was barred by limitation under Section 122 of the 
Act, Rule 14 could not be invoked; and (ii) the satisfaction regarding the B 
· iuexpedieecy or impracticability to hold a Court. Martial must flow from 
the :nature and the context oflhe misconduct itsetf arid n.\t f~om any 
extraneous factor s_uch as in the lust.int case viz. period of limitation'. 
1 
. 
' 
' ... ' 
.•. 
f 
Allowing the appeal.aod·settiug aside the decision of Division Bench, C 
• this.Court 
· ~ 
.'~l 
·" 
. · 
, 
•1 
.. 
HELD : 1. Once. the period of limitation· of -a trial is over the 
·authorities cannot take action under Rule 14 (2). The power under Rule 
14 cannot be exercised in a manner which would get over the bar of 
limitation laid down in the Army Aet, 1950 and if Rule 14 was to be D 
Interpreted to give such power it would clearly be ultra vires. · (842-F; 843-C] 
. 
. 
• · 
· 2. In the Instant case th~ 'trial had ~ome tiine barred. Wi1en the 
trial itseif was legaily Impossible and impermissible the question of its 
being impracticable cannot or does not arise. 'Impracticability' is a con· 
'cept different' from 'lnipos~ibility' for while· the latte~ is"absolute, the E 
. 
: 
-
i 
_· .... 
-
' 
. 
' 
former introduces at _all events some degrees of reason and involves some 
regard for practice. 'lnipracticab.le'. presupposes that, the. action is 
'•possibie• but owing to certain practical difficulties or other reasrins it is 
incapable of being performed. The· same priudple will eq;ally apply to 
satisfy the test of 'lnexpe!11ent' as it means not expedient; disadvantageous 
in .the circumstances, inadvisable, . impolitic. Therefore, so long as an 
Officer can be legally tri.,"d by a _Court Martial the concerned authorities 
may, OU the ground that SU~h a trial js not impracticable Odnexpedieut, 
invoke Rule 14(2). (842-C-E) 
.,,rJ··~s. 
; . 
,, ' 
F 
. 
. 3. Sectloo 127 of the Ai:t relates to a trial by a 'Crimuml Court' and G 
not· 'Court Martial' ~od speaks ·of a stage after th( trial by th~ 1;.tter is 
over. So far 'as the period .,;fUmitatiou of. trial liy Court Martial Is 
' 
. 
-
' 
-
j 
.•, 
concerned Section· 122 of the Act is a complete ·code bi;U~elf for not only 
It provides iu its
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.