UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus GURNAM SINGH

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 494 · Decided: 23-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, B.N. SRIKRISHNA · Disposal: Leave Granted & Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
GURNAM SINGH 
MARCH 23, 2004 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Army Rules, 1954: 
Rr. 37(/) and 37(3)-Recording of satisfaction justifYing court martial 
C and signing of convening order-Army Officer-Prosecution-General Court 
Martial held him guilty-Dismissal from service- Writ Petition by accused 
alleging violation of Rules 37(/) and 37(3) on the ground that the convening 
officer did not pass any order to the effect that he was prima facie satisfied 
that the evidence justified a court martial and the order convening the court 
D martial was signed by an officer other than the officer competent to convene 
the general court martial-Allowed by High Court-Held, r.37 does not 
contemplate that the officer who actually convenes the court martial need 
satisfj1 himself that the charges framed against the delinquent officer are 
within the purview of the Army Act and that the evidence justifies a trial by 
court-martial of such charges-The above satisfaction can be entered by an 
E officer empowered under Section 109 of the Act before the actual convening 
of court-martial-The officer who records satisfaction under sub-rule (1) 
and officer who actually convenes court-martial under sub-rule (3) of r.37 
can be two different officers, but both must be competent under s. 109 of the 
Act-The entire proposal for constitution of court martial was approved by 
p officiating General Officer Commanding-Apart from these official records, 
the officer convening the court martial, in his affidavit specifically stated that 
he had approved and empowered his Sta.If Officer to sign the convening order 
on his behalf-It is satisfactorily proved that sub-rules (/) and (3) of r.37 
have been fully complied with- High Court erred in finding that there was 
violation of r.37-Such finding is without any factual foundation and is 
G reversed- Matter requires to be re-considered by High Court-Judgment of 
the High Court is set aside-Matter remitted to High Court to be considered 
on all the points urged by respondent, except his plea regarding the infraction 
of r.37. 
H 
Union of India and Ors. v. Harfsh Chandra Goswami, (1999( 4 SCC 
494 
..,. . 
'T 
U.0.1. v. GURNAM SINGH 
495 
575 and distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1883 of2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.5.2003 of the Delhi High Court 
in C.W.P. No. 2683 of 1995. 
Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, P.P. Malhotra, Ashok K. 
Srivastava and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Appellants. 
Respondent-in-person 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. The respondent herein was commissioned in the 
Parachute Regiment of the Indian Army on 2.3.1968. He was subjected to 
court-martial proceedings on two charges framed against him. The first charge 
was to the effect that he failed to return two official files in spite of directions; 
A 
B 
c 
and the second charge was for using criminal force against late Major A.S. D 
Randhawa by throwing a chair at him and causing bruises on his face. The 
respondent was tried by a court-martial and the court found him guilty of 
both the charges. In view of the verdict of the court-martial, the respondent 
was dismissed from service. The respondent challenged the court-martial 
·proceedings and also the punishment imposed on him before the Punjab & E 
Haryana High Court. The High Court of Punjab & 1-laryana was of the view 
that it had no jurisdiction and the writ petition should be filed before the 
Delhi High Court. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the 
respondent to file it before the Delhi High Court. The respondent later filed 
a writ petition in the Delhi High Court and by the impugned judgment the 
punishment imposed on the respondent was set aside and the appellants herein F 
have been directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5 lacs for the harassment 
and indignity meted out to the respondent. The judgment of the Delhi High 
Court is challenged by the Union of India. 
We heard the counsel for the Union of India and also the respondent 
who appeared in person. 
G 
The High Court set aside the order passed by the appellant-authorities 
mainly on the ground that there was violation of Rule 37 of the Army Rules, 
1954. The respondent had alleged in the writ petition that under Rule 37, the 
officer who is convening the general court-martial shall satisfy hiri-iself that H 
496 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
12004] 3 S.C.R. 
A the cha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.