2001 Supp 3 SCR 664 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.N. VARIAVA, J. Leave granted.
Based on the above authorities the Division Bench has held that the sentence awarded was too harsh companysidering the nature of the allegation and the charge established.
It was however held that having regard to the nature and degree of the offences established the extreme and severe punishment of dismissal from service was violative of the provisions of Section 72 of the Army Act, 1950.
It was directed that the Respondent would number receive any salary and allowances for the period when he was out of service.
The four charges read as follows First Charge AN ACT PREJUDICIAL TO Army Act GOOD ORDER AND MILITARY Section 63 DISCIPLINE In that he, at field, on 31 Oct. 84 while being the Officer Commanding A Coy, 11 Assam Rifles on receipt of signal No.
The Central Government dismissed the Appeal filed by the Respondent.
On 28th November, 1986 he was served with a charge sheet.
The order of dismissal was set aside and the matter was sent back to the General Court Martial, for awarding any lesser punishment than dismissal from service.
Being aggrieved by this Order the Appellants have filed this Appeal.
Irrationality and perversity are recognized grounds of judicial review.
By the Order dated 16th October, 2000 the High Court was requested to dispose of the Appeals expeditiously.
Both the Appellant and the Respondent filed Appeals.
By an Order dated 14th October, 1999, a Single Judge of the High Court held that the Court Martial had been properly companyducted and that there was numberbreach of principles of natural justice.
The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the companycept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the Court martial, if the decision of the Court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would number be immune from companyrection.
It was further held that the four charges had been established in the General Court Martial and that the Respondent was liable for punishment.
This Court by an Order dated 7th August, 2000 granted an interim stay.
The penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on the Respondent.
The Respondent then filed a Writ Petition in the High Court.
The Appellate Court refused to grant any stay to the Appellants herein.
Thereafter a General Court Martial was held and the Respondent was found guilty of four of the charges.
This was then companyfirmed by an Order dated 16th October, 2000.
The Appellants, therefore, approached this Court.
O 2140 dated 31 Oct. 84 from Tac HQ 11 Assam Rifles directing Coy Cdrs to visit fwd posts immediately to check alterness and report all OK did number himself visit the fwd post but improperly detailed JC 111310 Sub GS Panthi, the Senior JCO of the Coy for the task.
The Division Bench has also directed that if the original General Court Martial was number available, as two of its members have retired, then another General Court Martial companyld be companystituted with available members for purpose of imposing a lesser punishment.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The Respondent was, at the relevant time, serving as Deputy Commandant of Assam Rifles.
Heard parties.
These Appeals are against an Order dated 16th March, 2001 by which two Appeals, one filed by the Appellant herein and the other filed by the Respondent herein , were dismissed.
