UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus LT. COL. RAHUL ARORA

Citation: [2024] 9 S.C.R. 186 · Decided: 09-09-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 9 S.C.R. 186 : 2024 INSC 672
Union of India & Ors. 
v. 
Lt. Col. Rahul Arora
(Civil Appeal No. 2459 of 2017)
09 September 2024
[Prashant Kumar Mishra* and  
Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Legality of the appointment of Judge Advocate who was admittedly 
junior to the respondent.
Headnotes†
Service Law – Army Medical Corps – Respondent was 
charge-sheeted for: (i) extraneous consideration declaring 
an army recruit as ‘fit’ after previously declaring him ‘unfit’;  
(ii) absenting himself without leave from 11.04.2004 to 
19.04.2004; (iii) conduct of unbecoming of an officer and the 
character expected of his position – Upon conclusion of trial 
by General Court Martial and two of the three charges proven, 
he was dismissed from service – Armed Forces Tribunal upheld 
the findings of guilt – However, the High Court allowed the 
writ petition preferred by the respondent solely on the ground 
that an officer junior to the respondent has acted as Judge 
Advocate in GCM: 
Held: Before the High Court, two different convening orders 
were produced – One by the appellant and the other one by the 
respondent – While the documents submitted by the appellant 
contained the reasons for appointing a junior as the Judge Advocate 
whereas in the convening order submitted by the respondent no 
such reason was mentioned – After comparing the documents, the 
High Court recorded a finding that the convening order Annexure R-I 
(produced by the appellant before the High Court) has been altered 
after the same was dispatched and received by the Headquarters 
Artillery Centre – The High Court specifically observed that once 
a document has been put in the course of transmission by the 
General Officer Commanding, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, 
* Author
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 
187
Union of India & Ors. v. Lt. Col. Rahul Arora
Karnataka and Kerala area, the same could not be changed/altered 
or modified except after recording that there was a mistake, which 
needs correction – Once dispatched by the officer signing the 
same, the communication of the document is complete and any 
alteration in the document is unauthorised – It is quite apparent 
that the reason for culling out exception as held permissible by 
this Court in Charanjit Singh Gill case, was not mentioned in the 
document while the same was dispatched by the issuing authority 
and supplied to the respondent – Subsequent mentioning of the 
reason in the other document, after putting signatures by the issuing 
authority, was unauthorised and impermissible, the High Court 
has correctly held that the convening order suffers from incurable 
defect as held by this Court in Charanjit Singh Gill case – The 
legal position is thus well settled in Charanjit Singh Gill case that 
non recording of reasons of appointment of an officer junior in 
rank as a Judge Advocate in the convening order invalidates the 
Court Martial proceedings – The High Court has not committed 
any error of law in holding so in the facts and circumstances of 
the case. [Paras 8, 9]
Case Law Cited
Union of India & Anr. v. Charanjit Singh Gill [2000] 3 SCR 245 : 
(2000) 5 SCC 742 – relied on.
Union of India v. S.P.S. Rajkumar and Ors. [2007] 5 SCR 521 : 
(2007) 6 SCC 407 – referred to.
List of Acts
Army Act; Army Rules.
List of Keywords
Service Law; Army Medical Corps; Dismissal from service; 
Appointment of Judge Advocate; Convening orders; Alteration in 
document; Incurable defect in convening order; Non-recording of 
reasons in convening order; Court Martial Proceedings.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2459 of 2017
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.05.2014 of the High Court of 
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 20380 of 2012
188
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
R Bala, Sr. Adv., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ashok Panigrahi, Ishaan 
Sharma, Aaditya Dixit, Advs. for the Appellants.
G.S. Ghuman, Harkirat Singh, Jatinder Pal Singh, Advs. for the 
Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.05.2014 passed 
by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP No. 20380 of 2012. 
Under the said order, the High Court has set-aside the order passed 
by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh,1 which has dismissed 
the appeal of the respondent and upheld the findings and sentence 
awarded by the General Court Martial.2
2.	
The respondent was f

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