RANDHIR SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 925 · Decided: 08-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
925
                                      RANDHIR SINGH
v.
                                 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No.210 of 2017)
JULY 08, 2019
[DR  DHANANJAYA Y  CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Army Act, 1950 – s.120 – Appellant enrolled in the 43 Armed
Brigade and at the material time was posted as Acting Lance Dafadar
– Allegation that in August, 2007 while on duty for cleaning the
service area in the morning, the appellant entered the residence of
a colleague and while his spouse was washing her son, placed his
hands on her shoulder – Summary Court Martial (SCM)– Appellant
dismissed from service – Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) while holding
that the charge was duly established, concluded that the punishment
of dismissal being disproportionate be modified to discharge – Plea
of appellant that convening of an SCM is by way of an exception
where immediate action is necessary– Held: In the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction, Supreme Court would be circumspect in
reassessing the evidence when the AFT duly applied its mind to the
findings of fact – Power to order an SCM is a drastic power which
must be exercised in a situation where it is absolutely imperative
that immediate action is necessary, as enunciated by three judge
Bench of Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Vishav Priya
Singh [2016] 5 SCR 473 while interpreting s.120 – Sub-s.(2) of s.120
is prefaced by the words “when there is no grave reason for
immediate action”– In the present case, though the incident took
place on 11 August 2007, SCM took place on 22 May 2008–
Convening of an SCM was contrary to law – Nearly 12 years have
elapsed since the date of the incident – Appellant had nearly twelve
years’ service when he was dismissed from service – Ends of justice
would meet if  the discharge of the appellant takes effect from the
date on which he completes fifteen years of service so as to render
him eligible for the grant of pension – Order of AFT modified –
Arrears of pension be paid over to the appellant – Constitution of
India – Art.142 – Practice & Procedure.
[2019]  9 S.C.R. 925
   925
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
926
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
Appellant was enrolled in 1996 in the 43 Armed Brigade
and at the material time was posted as Acting Lance Dafadar. It
was alleged that in August 2007 while on duty for cleaning the
service area in the morning, the appellant entered the residence
of a colleague and while his spouse was washing her son, placed
his hands on her shoulder. Summary Court Martial (SCM) was
conducted and the appellant was dismissed from the service.
Armed Forces Tribunal held that the charge was duly established,
but concluded that the punishment of dismissal was
disproportionate and the same be modified to order of discharge.
Hence, the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction,
Supreme Court would be circumspect in reassessing the evidence
when the Armed Forces Tribunal has duly applied its mind to the
findings of fact. The submission of the appellant has also been
duly assessed  that the appellant had lodged a complaint in the
past against the spouse of the victim for pilferage of petrol. It is
not necessary for Supreme Court to enter upon the findings of
fact since there is an independent ground on which the
submissions of the appellant would be worthy of acceptance.
Section 120 of the Army Act, 1950 was interpreted in the decision
in Ex-Havildar Ratan Singh and  subsequently in Vishav Priya
Singh. In a review petition filed by the Union of India in Vishav
Priya Singh, the earlier judgment was clarified on 16 February
2017. The clarification indicates that the requirement of recording
reasons for convening a Summary Court Martial shall apply from
5 July 2016. However, the fundamental principle of law which
has been enunciated is that the power to order an SCM is a drastic
power which must be exercised in a situation where it is absolutely
imperative that immediate action is necessary.  Sub-section (2)
of Section 120 is prefaced by the words “when there is no grave
reason for immediate action”. In the present case, though the
incident took place on 11 August 2007, the SCM took place on
22 May 2008. The convening of an SCM was contrary to law.
Ordinarily liberty would have been granted to the respondents
to pursue proceedings against the appellant in accordance with
law. However, nearly twelve years have elapsed since the date 

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