RAJVIR SINGH versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE & OTHERS

Citation: [2012] 4 S.C.R. 718 · Decided: 15-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 4 S.C.R. 718 
RAJVIR SINGH 
v. 
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE & OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 2107 of 2012) 
FEBRUARY 15, 2012 
[AFTAB ALAM AND CHANDRAMAULI 
KR. PRASAD, JJ.] 
Army Act, 1950 - ss. 122 and 52(f) - Court martial - Trial 
C if barred by limitation - Allegation that appellant, an Officiating 
Commandant at Central Ordnance Depot, caused wrongful 
loss to the Government to the tune of Rs. 60. 18 lakhs in the 
process of procurement of stores through local purchase by 
committing procedural irregularities/illegalities - Direction for 
D the General Court Martial to re-assemble for his trial -
Challenge to - Plea that trial was barred by time as provided 
under s. 122 - Held: The General Officer Commanding-in-
Chief, Central Command [GOC-in-C, CC] was in knowledge 
of the offence and the identity of the appellant as one of the 
E alleged offenders on May 7, 2007 - Reckoning from that date, 
the order passed by the General Officer Commanding, 
Madhya Bharat Area [GOG, MB Area], to convene the General 
Court Martial on August 23126, 2010 was clearly beyond the 
period of three years and hence, barred in terms of s. 122 -
F GOC-in-C, CC had come to know about the offence and the 
offender being the appellant on May 7, 2007 - It took one year 
from that date for him to pass the order for initiating 
disciplinary action against him on May 12, 2008 - There were 
still two years in hand, which is no little time but that too was 
G spent in having more than one rounds of hearing of the 
charges in terms of rule 22 with the result that by the time the 
order came to be passed to convene General Court Martial, 
more than three years had lapsed from the date of the 
knowledge of the competent authority - Direction by the GOG, 
H 
718 
RAJVIR SINGH v. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF 
719 
DEFENCE & OTHERS 
MB Area, for reassembly of the General Court Martial 
A 
accordingly quashed. 
B 
Appellant, an Officiating Commandant at Central 
Ordnance Depot, allegedly caused wrongful loss to the 
Government to the tune of Rs.60.18 lakhs in the process 
of procurement of stores through local purchase by 
committing procedural irregularities/ illegalities. The 
Armed Forces Tribunal dismissed Original Application 
filed by the appellant and rejected his challenge to the 
direction for the General Court Martial to re-assemble for 
his trial contending that his trial was barred by time as 
C 
provided under section 122 of the Army Act, 1950. 
In the instant appeal, it was contended on behalf of 
the appellant that the period of limitation for his trial 
before the Court Martial commenced when on the basis 
0 
of the report of the Court of Inquiry, the General Officer 
Commanding, Madhya Bharat Area [GOC, iVIB Area] sent 
his recommendation to the General Officer Commanding-
in-Chief, Central Command [GOC-in-C, CC] indicting the 
appellant; that the GOC, MB Area, who passed the order 
E 
dated August 23/26, 2010 convening the General Court 
Martial, directed the Commanding Officer to take further 
summary of evidence in the hearing of the charges under 
rule 22 and finally passed the order directing the Court 
Martial to reassemble for the appellant's trial; that the 
F 
GOC, MB Area was the competent authority to take action 
against the appellant and it was the date of his knowledge 
of the commission of the alleged offence and the identity 
of the appellant as the alleged offender that is relevant 
under section 122; that in any event the GOC-in-C, CC 
G 
was undeniably the competent authority to initiate action 
against the appellant; that on May 7, 2007, the alleged 
offence and the identity of the appellant as the alleged 
offender was fully within his knowledge on the basis of 
the recommendation of GOC, MB Area and the report of 
H 
720 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2012] 4 S.C.R. 
A the Court of Inquiry ordered by him; that his knowledge 
is evident from his recommendation to Integrated HQ, 
wherein, he stated that the culpability of the appellant was 
established and that the period of limitation must, 
therefore, commence from a date not later than May 7, 
B 2007 and reckoning from that date, the period of three 
years came to end on May 6, 201 O; that, however, the 
order for convening the General Court Martial was finally 
passed by the GOC, MB Area on August 23/26, 2010, that 
is, clearly beyond the period of limitation and hence the 
C appellant's trial before the General Court Martial was 
clearly hit by section 122 and

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