The appellant submit ted a petition dated December 18, 1978, to the Chief of Army Staff wherein he prayed that the findings and the sentence of the General Court Martial be number companyfirmed.
During this period Captain Chhabra submitted a Contingent Bill dated September 25, 1975 for Rs.16,280 for winter liveries of the depot civilian chowkidars and sweepers.
The said Contingent Bill was returned by the Controller of Defence Accounts CDA Meerut with certain objections.
1978, companytaining three charges was served on the appellant and it was directed that he be tried by Gener al Court Martial.
The prosecution examined 22 witnesses to prove the charges.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation, 1942 87 Law Ed.
the second charge was alternative to the first charge and was in respect of offence under Section 63 of the Act, i.e. companymitting an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline and the third charge was also in respect of offence under Section 63 of the Act.
The said petition of the appellant was rejected by the Central Government by order dated May 6, 1980.
K. Ganguli, A. Sharan for the Appellant.
on November 29, 1978, found the appellant number guilty of the second charge but found him guilty of the first and the third charge and awarded the sentence of dismissal from service.
626 at P. 636.
The General Officer Commanding in Chief.
341/Q dated September 25, 1975 for Rs.16,280 omitted to initiate action against Capt.
The appellant pleaded number guilty to the charges.
The first charge was in respect of the offence under Section 52 f of the Act, i.e. doing a thing with intent to defraud.
Thereupon the appellant submitted a fresh Contingent Bill dated December 25, 1975 for a sum of Rs.7,029.57.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.8.1981 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No.
The appellant approached this Court for grant of special leave to appeal against the said order of the Delhi High Court.
The findings and sentence of the General Court Martial were companyfirmed by the Chief of the Army Staff by his order dated May 11, 1979.
By the said order it was directed that the appeal be listed for final hearing before the Constitution Bench.
The said report of the Court of Enquiry was companysidered by the General Officer Commanding, M.P., Bihar and Orissa Area, who, on January 7, 1977 recommended that severe displeasure to be recorded of the General Officer Com manding in Chief of the Central Command be awarded to the appellant.
By order dated January 24, 1984, special leave to appeal was granted by this Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The said writ petition was dismissed, in limine, by the High Court by order dated August 12, 1981.
The General Court Martial.
In the writ petition the appellant had challenged the validity of the finding and the sentence recorded by the General Court Martial on November 29, 1978, the order dated May 11, 1979, passed by the Chief of Army Staff companyfirming the findings and the sentence recorded by the General Court Martial and the order dated May 6, 1980, passed by the Central Government dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Section 164 2 of the Army Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The said order does number indicate the reason why the appeal was directed to be heard by the Constitution Bench.
In view of the aforesaid order passed by the General Officer Commanding in Chief, Central Command, a charge sheet dated July 20.
On December 27, 1974, the appellant took over as the Officer Commanding of 38 Coy.
In August 1975, the appellant had gone to attend a training companyrse and he returned in the first week of November 1975.
In view of the difference in the amounts mentioned in the two Contingent Bills, the CDA reported the matter to the headquarters for investiga tion and a Court of Enquiry blamed the appellant for certain lapses.
Kapil Sibal, Additional Solicitor General, Raju Rama chandran, Rajiv Dhawan, C.V. Subba Rao and Mrs. Sushma Suri for the Respondents.
The appellant held a permanent companymission, as an offi cer, in the regular army and was holding the substantive rank of Captain.
Central Command did number agree with the said opinion and by order dated August 26, 1977, directed that disciplinary action be taken against the appellant for the lapses.
1835 of 1981.
Prasad for the Secretary, Ministry of Defence.
He was officiating as a Major.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. AGRAWAL, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order dated August 12, 1981, passed by the High Court of Delhi dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
The appellant thereupon filed the writ petition in the High Court of Delhi.
In his absence Captain G.C. Chhabra was the officer companymanding the unit of the appellant.
