UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus HARJEET SINGH SANDHU

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1127 · Decided: 11-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

it. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
V. 
HARJEET SINGH SANDHU 
APRIL 11, 2001 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Anny Rules, 1954 : Rule 14. 
Officer-Tennination of sen•ice of-By Central Government-Trial by 
court-martial-Inexpediency or impracticability of-Held: Services of an of-
c 
fleer may be tenninated untkr S. 19 of the Anny Act read witlz R. 14 either 
before convening the court-martial or after it has been convened and com-
menced provitkd trial by court-matrial is inexpedient or impractical. 
Army Act, 1950 : 
Sections 19 and 122-Trial by court-martial-Period of limitation-
D 
Expiry of-Power under S. 19 read with R. 14-Held: Expiry of period of 
limitation for trial by court-martial does not take away the power under S. 19 
-' 
read with R. 14-But if the delay is due to inaction on the part of the authorities, 
, -
then action under S. 19 may be vitiated, not for any lack of jurisdiction but for 
~ 
colourable or mala fid£ exercise of power. 
E 
Section 165-Annulment of court-martial proceedings-Power under S. 
19 read with R. 14-Exertise of-Effect on-Held : The delinquent officer 
cannot be allowed to escape the consequences of his misconduct on account of 
annulment of the proceedings-Hence, exercise of power under S. 19 read with 
R. 14 does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction. 
F 
Section 153-Finding and sentence of court-martial-Power to con-
firm-Principles-Held : Finding and sentence, if legal and just, have to be 
orrlinan"ly confirmed-But they may be annulled on grounds of illegality or 
unjustness-But once the finding and sentence are confirmed power under S. 
G 
19 read with R.14 cannot be exercised 
Section 125-Criminal court and court-martial-Choice between-Held: 
""' 
discretion to choose is vested in the prescribed military authorities-But once 
-; 
the delinquent officer is acquitted by criminal court no further action for 
misconduct on the same facts can be taken untkr S. 19 read with R. 14. 
H 
1127 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
Section 19 read with Rule 14-Power under-Exercise of-Judicial 
review of-Held : Is open to judicial review on grounds of mala fides or 
consideration of extraneous and/or irrelevant grounds or found to be a clear 
case of colourable exercise of/or abuse of power-However, correctness or 
adequacy of material cannot be revalued or weighed by the court-If two views 
are possible, court will not substitute its own view-Administrative I.aw. 
Termination of service-Under S. 71 and S. 19 read with R. 14-Distinc-
tion between-Explained. 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
Defence Services-Legislation dealing with-Principles of interpreta-
tion-Held : Same principles as applicable to any other statutes are also 
applicable to statutes dealing with defence services-However, additional 
weightage has to be assigned while interpreting any expression or provisions 
on account of security considerations. 
Words and Phrases : 
"Misconduct"-Meaning of-In the context of Army Rules, 1954, 
R. 14(1). 
"Inexpedient" and "impracticable "-Meaning of-In the context of Army 
Rules, 1954, R. 14(2). 
"Military justice" -Meaning of 
In the first of the two appeals, the respondent was tried by a General 
Court-Martial (GCM) and awarded certain punishment. However, the 
case was sent back for revision nuder Section 160 of the Army Act, 1950. 
The GCM, on revision, enhanced the punishment. But the Chief of the 
Army Staff (COAS) annulled the GCM proceedings under Section 165 of 
the Act on the ground that the proceedings were unjust. Subsequently, a 
show cause notice was issued to the respondent under Section 19 of the Act 
read with Rule of the Army Rules, 1954 calling upon the respondent to 
show cause why his services should not be terminated. The respondent 
filed a reply; but the COAS dismissed the respondent from service. The 
High Court, relying on Major Radha Krishan v. Union of India, [1996] 3 
sec 507, quashed the termination order on the ground that the retrial of 
' 
--
U.0.1. v. H.S. SANDHU 
1129 
the respondent by court-martial was barred by limitation under Section 
A 
-"-
122 of the Act and, therefore, the exercise of power under Section 19 read 
with Rule 14 was vitiated. 
In the other appeal, the COAS issued a notice to the respondent 
under Section 19 read with Rule 14 calling upon the respondent to show 
B 
cause why his services be not terminated in view of the fact that the court-
martial proceedings against
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.