UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE versus RABINDER SINGH

Citation: [2011] 15 S.C.R. 793 · Decided: 29-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 793 
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY 
OF DEFENCE 
v. 
RABINDER SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 7241 of 2002) 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Army Act, 1950 -
s.52(f) -
Respondent was a 
Commanding Officer of the 6 Armoured Regiment in the C 
Indian Army -
A/legation that he P.roceeded to order 
modification of some vehicles and countersigned bills, and 
.claimed and received amounts by preferring different claims, 
though not a single vehicle came to be modified and no items 
necessary for modification were purchased - General Court 
D 
Martial found him guilty and awarded punishment of R.I. for 
one year and cashiering - Respondent filed writ petition which 
was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court but appeal 
therefrom was allowed by the Division Bench - On appeal, 
held: The Division Bench ignored the fact that the E 
countersigning led to withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 77, 692/-
by the respondent for certain purchases which were neither 
authorized nor effected - There was economic loss suffered 
by Army - There was a complete non-utilisation of amount 
for the purpose for which it was claimed to have been sought F 
- There was deceit and injury-s.52 (f) of the Act was clearly 
attracted since respondent had acted with intent to defraud -
Any Army officer indulging into such acts could no longer be 
retained in the services of the Army, and the order passed 
by the General Court Martial could not be faulted - The Single 
G 
Judge rightly declined to interfere with the decision rendered 
by the General Oourt Martial - The Division Bench clearly 
e"ed in exercising its appellate power when there was no 
occasion or reason to exercise the same -Army Rules, 1954 
- ".30(4) and 42(b). 
'· 
793 
H 
; 
794 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
Army Act, 1950 - s. 52(f) - Two parts of - Interpretation 
of - Held: The two parts of s. 52 (f) are disjunctive, which can 
also be seen from the fact that there is a comma and the 
conjunction 'or' between the two parts of this sub-section, viz 
(i) does any other thing with intend to defraud and (ii) to cause 
B wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person 
- If the legislature wanted both these parts to be read together, 
it would have used the conjunction 'and'. 
The first respondent was deployed as the 
Commanding Officer of the 6 Armoured Regiment in the 
C Indian Army. The unit was authorized for one signal 
special vehicle. In case such a vehicle was not held by 
the unit it was authorized to modify one vehicle with ad-
hoc special finances for which it was authorized to claim 
amount. 
D 
It is the case of the appellant that the respondent 
proceeded to order modification of some 65 vehicles in 
two lots, first 43 and thereafter 22 and he countersigned 
bills, and claimed and received an amount of Rs.77,692/ 
E - by preferring four different claims, though not a single 
vehicle came to be modified; that no such items 
necessary for modification were purchased, but fictitious 
documents and pre-receipted bills were procured; and 
that though, the counter-foils of the cheques showed the 
F names of some vendors, the amount was withdrawn by 
the respondent himself. 
This led to the conducting of the Court of Inquiry to 
collect evidence and to make a report. On conclusion of 
the inquiry, disciplinary action was directed against the 
G respondent. Thereafter, the case against the respondent 
was remanded for trial by a General Court Martial. 
General Court Martial found him guilty and awarded 
punishment of R.I. for one year and cashiering. The 
respondent filed writ petition which was dismissed by a 
H 
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY 795 
OF DEFENCE v. RABINDER SINGH 
Single Judge· of the High Court but appeal therefrom was 
A 
allowed by the Division Bench leading to the present 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The Division Bench of the High Court held 
B 
that the only allegation leveled against the first 
respondent was that he had countersigned the 
contingent bills for claiming the cost of modifications of 
the vehicles, but there was no charge of wrongful gain 
against him. The Division Bench ignored the fact that this C 
countersigning led to withdrawal of an amount of 
Rs.77,692/- by the respondent for certain purchases 
which were neither authorized nor effected. The fact that 
the respondent had countersigned the contingent b

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