LexP.CHANDRAMOULY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
P.CHANDRAMOULY A v. ~ UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. JULY 22, 1994 [M.M. PUNCHHI AND K.J. REDDY, JJ.] B Service Law-Army Act. 1950-Act applicable to General Reserve Engi- neers Force-Court-Martial constituted under warrant of Chief of the Army Staff-Authority to the Chief Engineer to conduct the Court-MartiaHegality of c Army Ac~ 1950-Sec. 63 as applied to General Reserve Engineers Force by a Central Government order dated 23.06.1990-Substitution of "Discipline" for "Military Discipline''-Effect of punishment under Sec. 71(c)-Excepting application of Sec. 71(d) to (h)-Effect of D Army Act, 1950-Secs. 164 & 165-Confirming Authority-Whether bound to give reasons for decision. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Arguments under Special Leave Petition-Scope of-Limite<l--Transgresse~sts imposed. E The appellants, members of the General Reserve Engineers Force (GREF) committed offences punishable under Secs. 63 39(a) & 41 of the Army Act. Six charges were framed and they were convicted under all six counts by the Court-Martial. In an appeal before the High Court, convic- lion with relation to one count was quashed. Appeals by the Central F Government against quashing of the conviction and the other by the appel- lants for quashing of convictions on remaining five counts were filed before the Division Bench. The D.B. on reappraisal of the entire matter held as established all the six counts. It confirmed the requirement of a speaking order by the Confirming Authority under Secs. 164 & 165 of the Army Act. However, maintaining the convictions the court recommended commuta- G ' lion of sentence. In the Supreme Court the plea of the appellants was that the Court· Martial set up under a warrant of the Chief of the Army Staff authorising the Chief Engineer to conduct it was not legally constituted under the Army Act since there was no parallel officer of an Army rank posted in the GREF. H 43 44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A Also, that the substitution of the word 'military discipline' by 'discipline' in the Army Act as applicable to GREF relaxed the strict standards of order and discipline expected from them. Dismissing the appeal, this court B HELD : 1.1. Raising objections to jurisdiction was not available to the appellants because of the settled positiou in law that the GREF was part and parcel of the Armed forces to which the Army Act was applicable. [46-G, HJ 1.2. With the applicability of the Army Act the Chief of the Army Staff C besides the Central Government could issue a warrant for convening a Court-Martial. Anyone from the personnel directly governed. under Army Act as also the personnel to which the Army Act stood extended could be authorised'. The Chief Engineer could be issued a warrant as he was on the roll of the Force to which the Army Act had been extended. [47-C] D R. Viswan v. Union of India, [1983] 3 SCR 60 and Devi Prasad Mishra v. Union of India, W.P.(Crl) No. 1020of1978, followed. 1.3. Section 63 of the Army Act was applicable to members of GREF and they could be tried for any act or omission which, though not specified in the Act, was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The dropping of E the word 'military' from the text of Section 63 enlarged its scope for it obligated maintenance of discipline in a wider sense. Even ordinary dis· cipline expected to be observed by the members of GREF, when violated, would attract the jurisdiction of the Court-Martial which was empowered to impose sentences ofimprisonmeut. [48-A to CJ F 1.4. Other punishments enumerated in the Army Act had been ex- cepted from application to GREF. Those could not be imposed by the Court-Martial insofar as members of GREF were concerned and the Central Civil Services (CCAJ Rules came into fill the vacuum. The mem· hers of GREF were not due for a better treatment than ordinary govern· G ment servants who had to suffer disciplinary action under the said rules on the basis of criminal convictions. [48-E, F] 2. There was no express obligation imposed by Section 164 or Section 165 of the Army Act on the confirming authority or upon the Central Government. to give reasons in support of its decision to confirm the H proceedings of the Court-Martial. Absence of a speaking order did not .. ' .t P. CHANDRAMOUL Y 1·. U.0.1. 45 th"·art judicial r~rie'"·, if it "'as undertaken, since the parent order was A al>nl)'S available to build arguments
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.