LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SH. IQBAL SINGH CHEEMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. SH. IQBAL SINGH CHEEMA OCTOBER 16, 1995 B fG.N. RAY AND G.T. NANA VAT!, .IJ.J Se1vice Law. Border Secwity Force Act. 1968: c Court Martial-Commandant (Selection Grade)-Trial for conup- tion--Constitution of Board with a Commandant-Member junior to the Commandant vied-Held not violative of ntles--On facts proceedings held not vitiated for not giving reasonable opportunity to accused to defend the proceedingS-Conviction held justifie~Alteration of punishment from dis- D missal to foifeiture of pension for seven yeai~. E F Respondent, a Commandant (Selection Grade) in the Border Security Force, was found guilty of corruption charges, in Court Martial proceedings under the Border Security Force Act, 1968. Initially the Court Martial proposed punishment for forfeiture of seven years' service for the purpose of promotion and pensionary benefits but it was not accepted and instead dismissal order was passed. Respondent successfully challenged the dismissal order before the High Court on the ground that (i) he had been denied reasonable opportunity of being heard and contest the proceedings; (ii) constitution of the Court Martial was in violation of the Rules because one of the Comrnandant-Men1ber "'as junior to him in seniority. Against the decision of the High Court, appeals were preferred before this Court both by the respondent as well as Union of India. Disposing the appeals and setting aside the order of the High Court, G this Court HELD : 1. The Board had been . constituted properly by taking a Commandant in it and it was necessary to have a Commandant (Selection Grade) in the Board only because the respondent was a Commandant (Selection Grade). On the facts of the case, it does not appear that Court H Martial proceeding was vitiated for not giving reasonable.opportunity to 406 U.0.1. v. I.S. CHEEMA 407 the respondent to defend himself in the Court Martial proceeding. A [408-G-H] 2. The finding by the Court Martial about he complicity of the respondent in the offence charged cannot be held as unjustified. The charge of corruption alleged against the otlicer is quite serious which requires that a deterrent punishment sliould be passed. However, in the B peculiar facts of this case, the ends of justice will be met if the order of dismissal is replaced by the proposed punishment viz. forfeiture of promo- tion and pensionary benefits for seven years. [409-B] Union of India and Anr. v. S.S. Rana de, [1995] 4 SCC 462, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9579 of 1995 etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.2.92 of the Assam High 2ourt in C.R. No. 208 of 1990. K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General, A.S. Bhasme and P. Par- meshwaran for the Appellants. P.K. Goswami, Rajiv Mehta, Ms. Vanita Sahni and K. Vasudev for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted in both the special Leave Petitions Nos. 8416 and 9235 of 1992. Special Leave Petition No. 8416 of 1992 has been preferred by the Union of India and its officers against the judgment and order dated February 26, 1992 passed by the High Court of Gauhati in Civil Rule No. c D E F 208 of 1990 and the other Special Leave Petition No. 9235 of 1992 has been preferred by the appellant I. S. Cheema against the same order passed by Gauhati High Court. In a Court Martial proceeding initiated against I.S. G Cheema under the Border Security Force Act, 1968 and the consequential punishment of dismissal, a writ petition was moved before the Gauhati High Court by LS. Cheema who al the relevant time was holding the post of Commandant (Selection Grade) in the B.S.F. The Court Martial proceeding was initiated on a charge of corruption by directing subordinate H A B 408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS p.995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. ofhcers to arrange for weekly payments to the said Commandant hy encouraging smuggling activities in the border. Before the High Courl, the said I. S. Cheema contended that the Court Martial had not been properly conducted in view of the fact that he had been denied reasonable oppor- tunity of being heard and contest the said proceedings. It was also con- tended that the Court Martial itself was not properly constituted because one of the members was a Commandant in the Border Security Force but such member was junior to him in seniority. It appears that by the im- pugned order, the High Court has accepted b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.