LexS.N. MUKHERJEE versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A S.N. MUKHERJEE i1. UNION bi' iNbiA AUGUST 28. 199ti [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ., M.i-1. KANIA, K. JAGANNATHA Si-IETfY, K.N. SAIKIA AND S.t, AGRAWAL, JJ.) Army Act 1950: Seciion 164--Court-Martial.:_Post confirma- tion peiitioii-Centrd/ Government-Whether bound to give reasons. the Apjjeliant was ofridaiing as a Major ihoiigh lie held a sub- stantive raiik of Captain as a permanent Commissioned Officer of the army when on December 27, 1974 he took over as the Officer Com- manding 38 Coy. A.S.C. (Sup) Type 'A' attached to the Military Hospi- tai, Jhansi. In AU!lllst, 1975 the Appellant went to attend a training b coutse and returned in the first week of November, 1975. In his absence Captain G;t. Chhabra was commanding the unit of the appellant and he submitted a Contingent Bill dated September 25, 1975 for Rs.16,280 for winter liveries of the depot civilian chowkidars and sweepers. The said Bill was returned by the Controller of Defence Accounts (CDA) E F 0 with certain objections. Thereupon the appellant submitted a fresh con- tingent Bill dated December 25, 1975 for a sum ofRs.7,029.57. In view of the wide difference in the two Contingent Bills, the CDA reported the itiatter to tlie Headquarters for investigation and a Court· Enquiry blamed the appellant for certain lapses. After. considering the said report of the Court of Enquiry the Generai Officer Comniandlng, M.P., Bihar and Orissa recommended that 'severe ilispleasute' (to be recorded) of the General Officer Com- manding-iii-thief of the Central Command be awarded to the appel- HinL The Gimetal Officer Commanding-in-Chief Central Command, however, did riot agree wiih the said opinion and by order dated August 26, 1977 directed that dlsclpliilary action be taken against the appellant for the iapses. Purstiaill to the said order a charge sheet dated July 20, 1978 containliig iliree charges was served on the appellant and it was directed iha! he be fried by General Court Martiai. The first charge was; iioirig of a ihing with inient to defraud tinder section 52(f) of the H Aci. the second chai-ge was aitHnative ib the firsi charge i.e. commit- 44 ' f S.N. MUKHERJEE v. U.0.1. 45 · ting an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline under section 63 of the Act and the third charge was also in respeet of offence under section 63 of the Act. ~- A The appellant pleaded not quilty to the charges. The General Court Martial on November 29, 1978 found him guilty of first and third charge and awarded the sentence of dismissal from service. thereupon B the appellant submitted petition dated December 18, 1978 to .the Chief of Army Staff praying that the findings of the General Court Martial be not confirmed. The Chief of the Army Staff by his order dated May II, 1979 confirmed the findings and sentence of the General Court Martial. The appellant thereafter submitted a post-confirmation petition under section 164(2) of the Act. This was rejected by the Central Government by order dated May 6, 1980. Thereupon the appellant filed a writ C petition In the High Court of Delhi which was dismissed in limine. Hence this appeal by special leave directed to be heard by the Constitu- tion Bench for the reason that it involves the question as to whether it was incumbent for the Chief of the Army Staff, while confirming the findings and sentence of the General Court Martial and for the Central D Government while rejecting the post-confirmation petition of the appel- lant to record their reasons for the orders passed by them. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD: The requirement that reasons be recorded shonld govern E ilie decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial fu,1ctiolls irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, he added that it is not required that the reasons should he as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular fads and circumstances. What is necessary is that the j:i reasons are door and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. [62fl; 63A-B) The n·eed for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional autho- rity, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the (j appellate or r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.