UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus LT. GEN. (RETD.) S.K. SAHNI

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 946 · Decided: 23-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
946
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
v.
LT. GEN. (RETD.) S.K. SAHNI
(Criminal Appeal No. 2169 of 2014)
MARCH 23, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Army Rules, 1954 – rr.180, 22 and 40(2) – Army Act, 1950 –
s.123 –Respondent, commissioned in the Indian Army in 1967, was
thereafter appointed as Director General, Supplies and Transport
(DGST) in 2005 – A Court of Inquiry (CoI) was ordered to investigate
into several allegations against him – CoI only  recommended for
award of recordable censure against the respondent, but the Army
Commander and GOC-in-C directed disciplinary action under the
Army Act, 1950 and Army Rules, 1954 – After his retirement in 2006,
respondent filed a writ petition before High Court for quashing
proceedings against him – High Court held that appellants cannot
take any action against the respondent on basis of CoI
recommendation, but granted liberty to them to give notice to the
respondent and continue with the proceedings under r.180 of the
Army Rules, or “exercise any other power available to them under
the Act, insofar as they do not rely upon the proceedings on the
aforesaid Court of Inquiry” – Appellants, instead of invoking r.180
of the Army Rules,  wherein opportunity was to be provided to the
respondent, resorted to r.22 of the Army Rules and ordered
attachment of the respondent under s.123 of the Army Act – This
order was set aside by Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which declared
the said action as totally unwarranted and illegal – Appellants were
however directed to resort to COI after giving an opportunity to
the respondent and to comply with the requirement u/r.180 of the
Army Rules – In July 2011, General Court Martial (GCM)
proceedings, comprising of junior officers than respondent, found
respondent guilty of few charges, and sentenced him (i) To be
cashiered; and (ii) Rigorous imprisonment  for  three  years subject
to confirmation – Chief of Army Staff confirmed the same in January
2012 – Respondent filed appeal before the AFT, which modified the
sentence to dismissal from service – Respondent filed writ petition
   [2022] 16 S.C.R. 946
946
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
947
before High Court challenging the decision of AFT – High Court
issued notice – Meanwhile, Appellants filed appeal against AFT
decision before the Supreme Court – Respondent filed application
for transfer of his writ petition from High Court to Supreme Court,
which was allowed – Held: There are inherent limitations on the
jurisdiction of Supreme Court and it will not be permissible to re-
appreciate the evidence as recorded by the GCM unless the Supreme
Court finds that the material factors have been either ignored or
the evidence that has come on record, has been appreciated in a
totally erroneous manner – Materials placed on record to be
considered with these limitations in mind – On facts, on consideration
of material on record, findings and orders passed by the AFT as
well as the GCM not found to be sustainable in law – Appeal of
appellant dismissed – Transferred criminal case of respondent
allowed – Respondent acquitted of all the charges levelled against
him – He would be entitled to all pensionary and consequential
benefits in accordance with law – The arrears of such benefits shall
be computed and paid to the petitioner within a period of three
months from the date of the judgment – Armed Forces Tribunal Act,
2007.
Dismissing the appeal and allowing the connected Transfer
Case, the Court
HELD:1.1. Though nine charges were framed against the
respondent, they are inter-connected and are related to three
transactions. The first charge was that the  respondent had agreed
to the proposal of M/s Gujarat Co-operative Grain Growers
Federation Limited (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “M/s
GRAINFED”) for addition of two more tendering stations at
Gadarwara, District Narsingpur, Madhya Pradesh and Narsingpur
in Madhya Pradesh in addition to 14 tendering stations already
mentioned in the contract.  The charge was that this was done
with an intent to defraud the State. It is not even the case of the
appellants herein that any loss was caused to the Army on account
of such decision or any additional benefit was accrued to M/s
GRAINFED by such deviation. This is apart from the fact that
the Consolidated Order No. 3 of 1987 itself required any additional
expenditure incurred by the purchaser/savings made by the
supplier to be reimbursed by the Supplier to the Government.
UN

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