SANJAY MARUTIRAO PATIL versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 24-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO, M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
329
SANJAY MARUTIRAO PATIL
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 2448 of 2010)
JANUARY 24, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Army Act, 1950 – s. 63 – Army Rules, 1954 – r. 17 –
Termination from service – The appellant was charged u/s. 63 of
the Act – Appellant pleaded guilty – The Summary Court Martial
awarded the appellant with the punishment of reduction in rank –
Thereafter, appellant was served with a show cause as to why he
should not be discharged from Army Service under the provisions
of s. 20 of the Army Act r/w. r. 17 of the Army Rules, 1954 – Appellant
denied the allegations made therein – Consequent to which, Court
of Inquiry was held and appellant was terminated – Aggrieved, the
appellant filed appeal, which was dismissed – Appellant filed a writ
petition before the High Court and the same was also dismissed –
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that he was
punished twice by the respondents for the same offence, once the
Summary Court Martial awarded the punishment, thereafter to
dismiss the appellant u/s. 20 of the Army Act r/w. r. 17 of the Army
Rules would be double jeopardy, which is not permissible – Held:
There is nothing on record that the order passed by the Summary
Court Martial by which the appellant was reduced in rank was
even confirmed by the chief of the Army Staff in exercise of powers
u/s. 164 of the Army Act – Therefore, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the respondent no. 3 was justified in exercising the
power u/s.20 r/w r. 17 – The only procedure which is required to be
followed u/r. 17 of the Army Rules was, a person who is sought to
be dismissed or removed from service was informed of the particulars
of the cause of action against him and allowed reasonable time to
state in writing any reasons he may have to urge against his dismissal
or removal from service – In the present case, such an opportunity
was given to the appellant, therefore, proper procedure was followed
before dismissing the appellant from service – Insofar as double
jeopardy is concerned, it is required to be noted that earlier the
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 329
329
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
appellant was tried by the Summary Court u/s. 63 of the Army Act
only – However, the particulars of charges disclosed that offences
were fraudulent in nature – Thereafter, after giving an opportunity
to the appellant as required u/r. 17, the order of dismissal was passed
u/s. 20 of the Army Act r/w. r. 17 of the Rules and the said order was
confirmed by the Chief of the Army Staff u/s. 164 of the Act –
Therefore, the order of dismissal passed u/s. 20 and confirmation
by the Chief of the Army cannot be said to be violative of the
principle of double jeopardy.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. From the facts emerging from the record, it
appears that earlier the appellant was subjected to Summary Court
Martial. However, it is required to be noted that at the relevant
time, the aforesaid lapses/charges were not considered to be
fraudulent in nature and the appellant was tried by Summary Court
Martial for the said lapses/charges under Section 63 of the Army
Act, 1950. Thereafter, the appellant was inflicted with the penalty
of reduction in rank. Nothing is on record that the order passed
by the Summary Court Martial by which the appellant was reduced
in rank was even confirmed by the Chief of the Army Staff in
exercise of powers under Section 164 of the Army Act. Therefore,
it cannot be said that the order passed by the Summary Court
Martial by which the appellant was inflicted with the penalty of
reduction in rank attained finality on being confirmed by the
competent authority (in the present case the Chief of the Army
Staff). Therefore, considering the observations made by this Court
in paragraphs 24 to 27(more particularly, paragraph 27) in the
case of Harjeet Singh Sandhu, it was open for the competent
authority to exercise powers under Section 20 of the Army Act
read with Rule 17 of the Army Rules, 1954. The power vested
with the Chief of the Army Staff and conferred under Section 20
of the Army Act is an independent power available and for which
the procedure under Rule 17 of the Army Rules is required to be
followed, however, subject to the restrictions as observed by this
Court in paragraph 27 in the case of Harjeet Singh Sandhu.
Meaning thereby that only in a case where the final verdict of
guilty or not guilty pronounced by a Court Martial

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