UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus DEVJEE MISHRA

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 84 · Decided: 27-09-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 84 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
DEVJEE MISHRA 
(Civil Appeal No. 823 of2013) 
B 
SEPTEMBER 27, 20 I 6 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI AND A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) 
Service Law: 
Armed Force Personnel - Dismissal - Re5pondent worked as 
Corporal in Air Force - Over stayed the leave period- Departmental 
action taken - In court martial proceeding, respondent accepted 
guilt -· Dismissed from service - Respondent filed writ petition and 
stated that he never accepted guilt and was forced to make confession 
- High Court quashed the orders of dismissal on ground that he 
ll'as 1101 a habitual deserter,· that he 11e1•er accepted his guilt; that 
he was pressurized by his superiors to plead guilty; and that he was 
iflegaffy confined in a cell in violation of s.107 of Air Force Act and 
Arts. 21, 22 of the Constitution of India - On appeal, held: The 
records prove that re5pondent overstayed.the leave period after his 
marriage and respondent had faced action for similar misconduct 
in the past also - Court martial proceedings revealed that respondent 
voluntarily adi.;-itted his guilt on charges with fi1/l understanding 
and in 5pite of opportunity given to him to reconsider his stand and 
to defend himself, he did not change his confession and also declined 
to have a civil advocate - Confession was, there.fore, justly recorded 
in court martial proceedings by the officials - In reply affidavit to 
writ application, authorities unambiguously denied that respondent 
was forced to· give confession - However, same was not taken into 
consideration by High Court - Further, the document attached along 
with writ petition substantiating that respondent was pressurized by 
his superiors was not a part of court martial proceedings in the 
first place and no explanarivn was given for the same - Also, no 
reason given by High Court as to how s.107 of Air Force Act vitiated 
the enquiry against the respondent - High Court committed manifest 
error iu interfering ,;;fth the impugned decision of Competent 
authority - Air Force Act, 1950 - ss.39(a) (b), 161, 107 -
Constitution of India - Arts. 21, 22. 
84 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DEV JEE MISHRA 
85 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1. As regards the first reason, the impugned order 
of High Court does make reference to the fact that the respondent 
had faced action for similar misconduct in the past. The analysis 
of given evidence is not only in respect of acceptance of guilt by 
the respondent, but other aspects as well. Hence this reason 
B 
weighed with the Single Judge cannot stand the test of judicial 
scrutiny. [Para 9](91-G-H; 92-A,EJ 
2. The second reason which found favour with the Single 
Judge is that the averments made by the respondent in writ 
application had remained uncontroverted. This finding, is an error c 
apparent on the face of the record. The averments in Paragraphs 
of the counter affidavit would make it amply clear that the 
appellants had challenged the stated fact asserted by the 
respondent in the writ petition, that he was forced to give his 
confession. The Single Judge committed grave error in assuming 
that the appellants had not dispnted or controverted the assertion 
D 
made by the respondent in the writ application. The High Court 
completely glossed over the plea taken by the appellants that 
letter/document, wherein the respondent had asked to engage a 
private counsel was not a part of the Court Martial Proceedings. 
On the other hand, the record of Court Martial Proceedings not 
only revealed that the respondent voluntarily admitted his guilt 
to both the charges with full understanding and knowing the 
consequence therefor; but in spite of opportunity given to him to 
reconsider his stand, he did not change his confession. Therefore, 
it cannot be made the basis to grant any relief to the respondent 
much less to doubt the bo11(ljides of the officials involved in the 
conduct of Court Martial Proceeding. 
No tangible explanation 
is forthcoming as to what prevented the respondent from referring 
E 
F 
to this communication in the first place in the Court Martial 
Proceedings or at least in the appeal preferred by him, under 
Section 161 of the Act to the Competent Authority. For, such a 
G 
belated plea ought not to be entertained by the High Court, that 
too in a casual manner. Also, the respondent was called upon to 
produce the original, which he never did. (Paras 10,11 )(92-F; 93-
B; 95-A-F] 
3. The last/fourth 

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