UNION OF INDIA versus S. K. RAO

Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 447 · Decided: 22-11-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
S. K. RAO 
November 22, 1971 
447 
(S. M. SIKRI, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA AND G. K. 
MITTER, JJ.J 
Army Act, 1950, ss. 19, 45 and I91 (2)(a), and Army Rules. 1954, 
r. 14-Whether r. 14, ultra vires. 
The respondent, a commissioned officer in the Indian Army, was found 
to have committed acts of gross misconduct by a Court of lnquirv. The 
Chief of the Armv Staff was of the opinion that his trial by a General 
Court Martial was inexpedient, and the respondent was removed from ser-
vice after following the procedure under r. 14 of the Army Rules, 1954. 
On the question whether r. 14, which gives power to the Central Gov· 
ernment N remove an officer without being tried and oonyicted by Court 
Martial was in derogation of s. 45, Army Act, 1950, which specifically 
provides for conviction by court martial and punishn1ent for unbecoming 
conduct, 
HELD : The rule is not ultra vires. [451 DJ 
( 1) Section 19 of the Act provides that subject to the provisions of 
the Act and the rules made thereunder the Central Government may re-
n1ove from service, any person subject to the Act. Therefore, the section 
itself suggests that there should be rules regarding removal from service, 
and s. 191(2)(a) of the Act specifically gives power to make a rule pro-
viding for the removal from the service of persons subject to the Act. 
[450 H; 451 A-Bl 
(2) Although s. 19 uses the words "subject to the provisions of this 
Act", the section is not subject to s. 45. The power under s. 19 is inde-
pendent of the power under s. 45, because, while s. 19 speaks of removal 
of a person, s. 45 provides that on conviction bv Court Martial an officer 
is liable to be cashiered or to suffer such less punishment as is in the Act 
tnentioned. f451 B-DJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JUR1smcr10N : Civil Appeal No. 1653 of 
1967. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 23, 1967 
of the Delhi High Court in C.W. No. 403-D of 1959. 
B. Sen, P. L. Juneja, R. N. Sachthey a.nd S. P. Nayer, for the 
appellant. 
denf.ardar Bahadur and Y ougindra Khusha/ani, for the respon-
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
. . Silui, C.J.. The judgment. reproduced below, was drafted 
by the late Mt. Justice Roy and we all had subscribed to it. We 
beatd the tnatte't fottnally again on November 19, 1971. \\'e 
adopt tile jud~ttt as our OWli. 
-448 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1972] 2 S.C.R. 
This is an appeal by the Union of India by way of special 
leave. 
On April 9, 1959, the Central Government directed removal 
from service of Capt. S. K. Rao under r. 14 of the Army Rules, 
1954. The facts leading to his removal are as follows : 
Rao was a commissioned officer in the Indian Army and was 
attached to the Army 'Ordnance Corps Training Centre, Secundra-
bad. It was a11eged that on April 4, 1958, he committed acts of 
gross misconduct. The allegations were as follows : 
"Knowing Kumari Prakash as the. c:Iaughter of a 
brother Officer, Rao assisted her in going away from her 
parents protection and planning to run away with a 
sepoy." 
"Rao, by threatening to cause harm to Kumari 
Prakash's parents, intimidated her to visit . his house 
where .he took her in his scooter to the unit lines of 5I11 
Gurkha Rifles where he arranged her meeting with a 
sepoy of the unit." 
"He (i.e. Rao) acquiesced in the girl being met by 
the sepoy later at a tea shop nearby where she received 
a present of a sari and blouse from the sepoy in his 
presence." 
"Rao thus actively abetted in the attempt of brother 
officer's daug,,hter elope with a sepoy." 
"Rao then took Kumari Prakash to a hotel "Saidya 
Lodge' in Hyderabad and got a room to themselves by 
impersonating and giving a false identity as "Mr. & Mrs. 
Prakash". 
An inquiry into the matter w.as made by Court of Inquiry. The 
Chief of the Army Staff, after going through the proceedings of 
the Court of Inquiry, considered that the conduct of Capt. Rao 
was most unbecoming of an officer. 
As he was of opinion that 
trial of the officer by a General Court Martial was inexpedient, he 
ordered administrative action to be taken under r. 14 of the Army 
Rules, 1954. 
By memorandum dated September 4, 1958, Rao 
was called upon to submit his explanation by way of defence re-
garding the allegations against frim. The explanation of Rao was 
placed before the Central Government. The Central Government 
found it to be unsatisfactory, and on April 9, 1959, an order was 
passed removing the respondent fro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.