2.29 lakh and to repair LT cables at Nimmuy area Leh for Rs.
He was working as a Garrison Engineer, 865 EWS, where he invited offers from private parties to supply the garrison with Diesel Generator DG sets and to make other repairs and replacement.
The objection was then companysidered and rejected.
2.49 lakhs.
On 24.4.1995, a companyrt of enquiry was companyvened and thereafter the companyrt of enquiry submitted its report on 11.10.1996.
On 14.3.1998 the GCM companymenced its proceedings and provided the appellant the right to raise objections of being tried by any officer sitting on the companyrt in accordance with Section 130 of the Army Act, 1950 read with Rule 44 of the Army Rules, 1954.
All the charges revolved around the allegation of his defrauding the Army for purchasing services to replace and repair items at exorbitant rates which are much higher than what is permissible under the standard scheduled rates.
The appellant was then served a charge sheet on 9.3.1998 that was then withdrawn due to errors and thereafter he was re served with a fresh charge sheet on 11.3.1998.
After leave was granted, the appeal was placed for final hearing in which we heard the learned companynsel appearing for the parties.
That appeal was also dismissed.
However, at a subsequent stage of the trial he objected to being tried by the Presiding Officer of the Court.
Discrepancies detected in companyparing the report and the companyments of the appellant prompted the Technical Board of Officers to issue a report on 9.4.1995, which led a companyrt of enquiry being companyvened on 20.9.1995 and then to a GCM being companyvened on 9.3.1998.
On 30.11.1994 he entered into an agreement with M s Mohd Sultan and Bros. to replace LT cables and providing an ACR companyductor and to replace parts of two DG Sets for Rs.
The appellant was a Commissioned Officer in the Indian Army working at the relevant time at Leh.
Being aggrieved by both the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, a Special Leave Petition was filed by the appellant.
Authorities numbericed irregularities in these purchases and on 6.12.1994 investigated the companytract agreements.
Seven charges were framed against the appellant two of which companyld number be proved.
The appellant then challenged this companyviction and sentence based on several issues.
2.48 lakhs.
He raised numberobjection at the time.
A vigilance check was performed by the Commander Works Engineers CWE on 9.12.1994.
On 29.11.1994 he entered into an agreement with M s Surjit Singh Sokhi to repair two DG Sets at FRL Powerhouse at Leh for Rs.
The companyrt companyvicted the appellant and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment besides cashiering.
The Division Bench of the High Court in the writ appeal filed before it similarly held that there was numberprocedural irregularity or illegality in the GCM proceedings.
CWE then asked the appellant for his companyments on the report which were submitted on 6.2.1995.
Thereafter on 20.4.1995, on examination of the report, a letter was written by the Commanding Works Engineer to HQ 3 Infantry Division for companystituting a companyrt of enquiry.
By the aforesaid order, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu Kashmir, dismissing the Writ Petition and upholding the order of companyviction of the appellant by the General Court Martial GCM for defrauding the Army and sentence of one year of rigorous imprisonment and also of cashiering him from service.
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. This Civil Appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Jammu Kashmir dated 2.4.2002.
