LexUNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus PURUSHOTTAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• [2015) 1 S.C.R. 849 . UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. PURUSHOTTAM (Civil Appeal No. 7133 of 2008) JANUARY 05, 2015 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] A B SerVice Law - Departmental enquiry - Permissibility - Summary Court Martial (SCM) proceedings ulr. 133 of Army C Rules - Holding the delinquent guilty for the offences charged - Reviewing authority acting uls. 162 of Army Act set aside the SCM proceedings on the ground of incorrect framing of charges and lackadaisical recording of evidence - Thereafter army authorities issued Show Cause Notice to the delinquent 0 alleging the same charges for which SCM proceedings were initiated and later set aside - Termination of the services of the delinquent - Writ petition challenging termination - High Court allowed the petition setting aside Show Cause Notice - However, the court did not preclude the delinquent from initiation of departmental action - On appeal, held: Acquittal E of an employee by a criminal court would not automatically and conclusively impact Departmental proceedings - Unless the delinquent earns honourable acquittal departmental proceedings cannot be precluded - The delinquent in the present case having not earned honourable acquittal, not F precluded from departmental proceedings - Army Act, 1950 - s. 162 Army Rules - r. 133. Army Rules, 1950 - r. 133 - Summary Court Martial proceedings ulr. 133 - Review of - Held: r. 133 does not G empower Deputy Judge-Advocate General as the reviewing authority, but merely confers on it forwarding function - The finding and sentence of Summary Court Martial ought to be 849 H 850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 1 S.C.R. A left undisturbed by the reviewing authority- Army Act, 1950 - s. 161(1). Army Act, 1950 - s. 121 - Applicability - Scope of - Held: s. 121 postulates the autrefois acquit and autrefois 8 convict as distinct from Art. 20(2) of the Constitution which postulates only autreifois convict - However, the insulation u/ s. 121 is only restricted only to second court martial or dealings u/ss. 80, 83, 84 and 85 of the Act - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20(2). Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 20(2) - Principle of Double Jeopardy - Applicability of - Summary Court Martial proceedings set aside - Subsequent Show Cause notice to the delinquent on the same set of charges - Held: Art. 20(2) does not within it, imbibe the principle of autrefois acquit - D Therefore, the subsequent "departmental or disciplinary . proceedings, even if punitive in amplitude, would not be outlawed by Art. 20(2) - In the present case delinquent not precluded from departmental proceedings. E F Interpretation of Statutes - Interpretation of rules - Held: Rules should be interpreted in a manner which would repose them in harmony with the parent statute - If the rules ordain an action not contemplated by the statute, it would suffer from the vice of excessive delegation and thus would be ultra vires. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The framers of the Constitution were fully alive to the differing and disparate concepts of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict and consciously chose to G circumscribe the doctrine of double jeopardy only to prosecution culminating in a conviction. Article 20(2) of the Constitution does not within it imbibe the principle of autrefois acquit. A fortiori Article 20(2), which contemplates "prosecuted and punished" thus evincing H the conscious exclusion of autrefois acquit, palpably UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. PURUSHOTTAM 851 postulates that the prescribed successive punishment A must be of a criminal character. It irresistibly follows that departmental or disciplinary proceedings, even if punitive in amplitude, would not be outlawed by Article 20(2). [Paras 10 and 12] (862-H; 863-A; 865-F-H] Maqbool Hussain vs. State of Bombay 1953 SCR 730 - 8 followed. R. P. Kapur vs. Union of India AIR 1964 SC 787: 1964 SCR 431 - held inapplicable. c R.S. Nayak vs. A.R. Antulay (1984) 2 SCC 183:1984 (2) SCR 495; Haldiram Bhujiawala vs. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar (2000) 3 SCC 250: 2000 (1) SCR 1247; Samatha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) 8 SCC 191: 1997 (2) Suppl. SCR 305 ; State of Bihar vs. Murad Ali Khan (1988) 4 SCC D 655: 1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 455 - referred to. John Hudson v United States 522 U.S. 93 (1997); United States v. Halper 490 U.S. 436 (1989); United States v. Ward 448 U.S. 242 (1980) - referred to. 2. A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.