UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus R.K. SHARMA

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 664 · Decided: 09-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
R.K. SHARMA 
. OCTOBER?· 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
·' 
Military Law: 
An~yAct, 1950-Sections45, 57, 63, 71 and.72-General CourtMartial-'-
Penalty of dismissal from service~High Court held charges established-
However, it set aside the order of dismissal as the sentence fl-Warded was too 
harsh considering the nature and degree of offence established-On appeal 
held punishment imposed by General Court Martial correct as it has the 
powers-Thus interference by High Court not justified. 
Respondent was found guilty of four charges and was awarded 
punishment of dismissal from service by the General Court Martial (GCM). 
Central Government dismissed respondent's appeal. Single Judge of the 
High Court held that the Court Martial had been properly conducted and 
four charges had been established in the GCM. However, the Single Judge 
was of the view that having regard to the nature and degree of the offences 
· E 
established the extreme and severe punishment of dismissal from service 
was violative of the provisions of Section 72 of the Army Act, 1950. Thus 
the order of dismissal was set aside arid matter was sent b.ack to GCM for 
awarding any lesser punishment. Thereaner, cross appeals were filed which 
were dismissed and the Division Bench also held that a lesser punishment 
p 
be imposed. Hence the present appeals. 
G 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. The Respondent did not obey the command from the 
Headquarter, did not make payment of certafo amount and also falsified 
records in order to make out a case that he had already gone to two of the 
forward posts which are very serious offences for which the respondent 
could be sentenced tci imprisonment for either 7 years or.· 14 years as 
contemplated under Sections 57 and 63 of the Army Act,· 1950. However, 
General Court Martial took a lenient view by merely dismissing him from 
service which is a lesser punishment. Therefore, the courts below erred in 
H 
coming to the conclusion that the order of dismissal from service imposed 
664 
U.0.1. v. R.K. SHARMA 
665 
by the General Court Martial on the respondent was too harsh considering 
A 
the nature of allegation and the charges established against him. 
(673-D-E; 672-B-C] 
Bhagat Ram v. State of H.P., AIR (1983) SC 454 and Ranjit Thakur v. 
Union of India, [1987] 4 SCC 611, referred to. 
2. Both the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have held that 
the charges levied on the respondent have been proved and he was guilty of 
these charges. Therefore, it was not open . to the courts below to have 
interfered with the sentence since awarding of sentence is within the powers 
of the Court Martial. [670-G-Hl 
Union of India v. Major A. Hussain, (1998] 1 SCC 537, relied on. 
3. The punishment of dismissal was not violative of the provisions of 
Section 72 of the Act which merely provides that the Court Martial may, 
on convicting a person, award either the punishment which is provided for 
B 
c 
the offence or any of the lesser punishments set out in the scale in Section 
D 
71 of the Act. It does not set out that in all cases, a lesser punishment must 
be awarded. Merely because a lower punishment is not imposed, it would 
. not mean that the punishment was violative of Section 72 of the Act. 
[671-F-H] 
4. The observation in Ranjit Thakur case that when punishment is so 
E 
strikingly disproportionate it calls for interference should not to be taken 
to mean that a Court can, while exercising powers u~1der Article 226. or 227 · 
and/or under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 interfere with 
the punishment because it considers. the punishment to be disproportionate. 
It is only in extreme cases, which on their face show perversity or 
F 
irrationality that there can be judicial review. Merely on compassionate 
grounds a Court should not interfere. [67l•E; F] 
Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, [1987] 4 SCC 611, explained. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7052-7053 of 
2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.3.2001 of the Assam High Court 
in W.A. Nos. 442/99 and W.A. No. 115 of 2000. 
Harish N. Salve, Solicitor General and Kai lash Vasdev, A.K. Srivastava, 
G 
Hemant Sharma and. Ms. Sushma Suri for the Appe!lants. 
H 
666 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Revindra Kumar and Sandeep Singh for the 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.