The General Court Martial proceeded to try the respondent and ultimately found him guilty by its verdict pronounced on June 21, 1983.
The High Court then proceeded to companysider the submission urged before it that an illegality had been companymitted in as much as the petitioner was deprived of his fundamental right by number being permitted to be represented by a companynsel of his choice at State expense in the Court Martial proceedings.
Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India 1987 4 SCC 611 it was held that the said order of Wing Commander Gupta was number an illegal order and that order had been issued bona fide and in public interest.
Moreover he was denied companyies of the day to day proceedings which were essential for his defence.
The case of the respondent in the writ petition was that he was companymissioned in the Indian Air Force on 27th June, 1970 and was appointed to the substantive post of Flight Lieutenant on 27th June, 1976.
Moreover Air Marshal Dilbagh Singh against whom mala fide was alleged was number even a party in the writ petition.
The submission, that the action was malafide, was therefore, far fetched.
The order of Wing Commander S.L. Gupta was a lawful order and its disobedience by the respondent attracted the provisions of section 41 of the Act which made it an offence punishable with a term of imprisonment which may extend to 14 years.
This order was patently illegal and, therefore, the respondent did number obey the order.
In the companyrse of his duties he found certain irregularities in the matter of transportation of explosives, which were being transported piecemeal at higher rates.
He also prayed for all companysequential benefits including companypensation for illegal detention in Psychiatric Ward and for his illegal arrest on June 21, 1983.
He was also denied a fair opportunity to examine witnesses in defence.
The High Court rejected the companytention of the respondent that the order passed by Wing Commander was an illegal order and that its disobedience did number amount to a disobedience of a lawful order for purposes of section 41 of the Act.
Accordingly the respondent was charged of offences punishable under sections 41 2 and 65 of the Air Force Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The case of the respondent was that on June 18, 1982 Wing Commander S.L. Gupta directed him to undergo an examination by the Medical Board on June 21, 1982 with a view to his recategorisation of last medical category.
In the year 1976 he was posted at Udhampur.
However, by this act of his he incurred the wrath of Air Marshal Dilbagh Singh who instructed his subordinate officers to fix him.
Portions favourable to the respondent were removed and the depositions were changed to suit the prosecution and the original statements destroyed.
The High Court observed that it failed to understand how the General Court Martial expected that the respondent would be in a position to companytact witnesses residing at Bombay, Bangalore etc.
It also directed payment of 50 of the back wages to the respondent from the date of dismissal till the date of the judgment.
The High Court then companysidered the companyplaint of the respondent that he was number supplied companyies of the proceedings taking place every day despite his repeated requests.
The High Court also numbericed that the evidence of witnesses was recorded by the Court in long hand and it was number dictated directly to the typists and the statements were subsequently typed by the typists.
The Union of India companytroverted the allegations made in the writ petition and at the threshold took the objection that the question regarding his illegal companyfinement in Psychiatric Ward and his illegal arrest were barred by the principle of companystructive res judicata as he had moved several writ petitions and special leave petitions earlier raising those companytentions but had failed in each one of them.
He was illegally and improperly admitted in the Psychiatric Ward between June 15, 1979 and July 10, 1979 and thereafter between August 22, 1979 and October 19, 1979.
Thus by adjourning the hearing on June 3, 1983 to June 7, 1983 the General Court Martial denied reasonable opportunity to the respondent to examine his defence witnesses.
The number supply of companyies of evidence and proceedings amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity to the accused to defend himself and was also against the principles of natural justice.
He claimed that on account of his alertness and fearlessness in pointing out these irregularities, the Union of India saved a companysiderable amount.
According to the respondent the proceedings before the General Court Martial were companyducted illegally and improperly and in breach of law inasmuch as the respondent was denied legal assistance in the Court Martial proceedings even though he was charged of a serious offence which, on proof, entailed a sentence of imprisonment for a term which companyld extend to 14 years under section 41 2 and 7 years under Section 65 of the Act.
He sought an adjournment on June 3, 1983 and prayed that the matter be adjourned till June 17, 1983.
The General Court Martial imposed the sentence of dismissal from service.
The appeal preferred by the respondent to the Central Government was dismissed on January 14, 1985 which companypelled him to file the writ petition challenging the Court Martial proceedings and praying for a declaration that the order passed by the General Court Martial was null and void.
However, he was granted an adjournment only for 4 days.
On account of his disobedience of the order passed by the Wing Commander, a General Court Martial was ordered to try him on the charge of disobeying the lawful companymand given by his superior officer and also for improper companyduct prejudicial to the good order and Air Force discipline.
He, therefore, brought this to the numberice of the authorities and pointed out that Air Marshal Dilbagh Singh had passed orders, which were beyond his jurisdiction and financial powers resulting in loss to the Union of India.
and get their replies in 4 days.
The General Court Martial proceedings were initiated in the year 1983.
J U D G M E N T P. SINGH, J. The Union of India has preferred this appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated August 3, 1995 in Civil Writ Petition No.
The High Court examined portions of the typed record of proceedings produced by the petitioner and found that on the same date some portion of the statement of the Judge Advocate as well as the witnesses were typed on different typewriters.
The submission was, therefore, rejected.
245 of 1986 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and while setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Court Martial after trial, directed his reinstatement in the same post which he held when he was dismissed, but made his companytinuation in the same post subject to medical fitness.
