UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus NAIK SUBEDAR CLK(S) BALESHWAR RAM AND ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 19 · Decided: 27-10-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
NAIK SUBEDAR CLK(S) BALESHWAR RAM AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 27, 1989 
[RANGANATH MISRA. P.B. SAWANT AND 
K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Army Act, 1950: Sections 52, 63. 
Army Rules 1954: Rule 22. 
Dismissal pursuant to General Court Martial-Validity of. 
Non-compliance with Rule-Effect of. 
The respondents faced trial for the charge of theft. After a 
General Court Martial, they were found guilty, convicted and senten-
ced. All the three respondents were dismissed from service. 
The respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court challeng-
ing the decision of the Court martial, and the order of the dismissal. 
The High Court set aside the order of conviction and pnnishment of 
imprisonment as also the order of dismissal from service by holding that 
the trial before the Conrt Martial General was in contravention of Rule 
22 of the Army Rules, 1954. Hence this appeal by the Union oflndia. 
Allowing the appeal in part, this Court. 
HELD: I. It is a fact that the allegation at the stage of inquiry 
under Rule 22 was described as prejudicial to good order and military 
discipline but the basic facts said to constitute that allegation were 
nothing else than removal of the foodstuff which constituted the charge 
of theft. It is, therefore, clear that no prejudice has been caused to 
respondent I and the enquiry under Rule 22 and the trial before 
General Court Martial were over the self same facts. [21 H; llA J 
2. It is a fact that as against respondents 2 and 3 there was no 
inquiry under Rule 22. It is not disputed that the Commanding Officer 
of the Unit had stated before the General Court Martial that he did not 
find any case against respondents 2 and 3. The conclusion reached by' 
the Commanding Officer was reasonable. Therefore there is no justifi-
cation to set aside the order of the High Court so far as respondents 2 
and 3 are concerned. [2ID-E] 
19 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
20 
SUPREME COURTREPORTS 
[1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
Lt. Col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi v. Union of India & Ors., [1982] 3 
sec 140, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 778 
of 1988. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.8.1987 of the Assam High 
c 
Court in Civil Rule No. 372 of 1982. 
Anil Dev Singh and P. Parmeshwaran for the Appellants. 
A.K. Ganguli, I.A. Ansari and Ms. Mridula Ray for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal is by special leave and. is 
directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court 
D of Guwahati setting aside the order of conviction and the punishment of 
imprisonment as also the order of dismissal from service inflicted on 
the three respondents following a finding of guilt by the General Court 
Martial. 
Naik Subedar Baleshwar Ram was a Junior Commissioned 
E Officer of Amaribari Supply Point in the far eastern sector and was in 
overall charge of the said supply point. Around 5.30 p.m. on June 19, 
1980, he directed Driver Rattan Singh to park an army vehicle near the 
ration store for loading dry ration. Respondent Ramji with the help of 
one labour from civilian side loaded the dry ration in the vehicle, 
whereafter Baleshwar Ram directed the truck to be taken towards 
F Balipura. Respondent No. 1 sat in the front seat in civil dress while 
respondents 2 and 3 sat behind the body of the truck. By the time the 
vehicle reached Balipura, it had become dark and respondent No. 1 
ordered the driver to take the vehicle towards Tezpur. When the vehi-
cle reached the outskirts of village Eatavari, respondent No. l directed 
the driver to slow down and turn the vehicle towards the right and take 
G it off on a narrow kutcha track not leading to Tezpur. The driver of the 
vehicle was not prepared to take the vehicle on the kutcha road but 
upon respondent No. l's insistence the vehicle was so taken and on the 
kutcha track the vehicle bogged down mid-way and could not be taken 
further. In the meantime, some civilian persons gathered there. The 
respondents 2 and 3 got down and started unloading some ration until 
H they were prevented by the civilians present there. Respondent No. 2 
-
U.0.1. v. NAIK SUBEDAR B. RAM (MISRA, J.( 
21 
slipped away from the place. The civilians being suspicious informed 
the civil police, who in turn handed over the matter w m11nary police 
for investigation and necessary action. After due inqmry a disciplinary 
action was initiated and inquiry under Rule 22 of the Army Rules was

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