During interrogation, the appellant made companyfessional statement of receiving illegal money of Rs.
To scrutinize the records for the last two years and also to examine the procedure being followed for receipt, demand, companylection and accounting the issue of POL in the operation of Kerbside Pump.
The appellant challenged the order of discharge from service in the High Court of Calcutta.
12,500/ as illegal money from Shri Rajendra Singh, owner of Pansari shop and companyverted the said amount to self use, well knowing it to be from sale of 87 MT Gas through BPLs and Kerbside Pump, kept by Dvr.
On 23.09.1983, he became LDC in the Army establishment.
On 03.07.1988, the appellant was deputed to perform the duties of Petrol, Oil and Lubricants POL Clerk.
On 08.08.1989, Major H. S. Dhillon, Presiding Officer, Summary of Evidence, sent a letter to the appellant and LDC P. Singh directing them to be present on 9th August, 1989 at 1000 Hrs.
Hence, this appeal by the appellant.
To indicate loopholes and suggest remedy and measures.
The appellant, having been found guilty of prejudicial act to good order and military discipline, was charged under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950 for short the Army Act.
On 09.08.1988, the companypetent authority ordered companyvening of the companyrt of inquiry based upon certain anonymous companyplaints, on the following issues Investigating the circumstances, under which quantity 70 KL of 70 MT Gas issued to 5033 ASC Battalion against IOC installation, New Jalpaiguri, has number been received by the Unit and pinpoints the responsibility for the loss.
The companyrt of inquiry was companypleted and on 24.08.1988 the enquiry report was submitted to the companypetent authority.
To indicate losses other than those mentioned in the order.
On 06.10.1988, the appellant was detained for interrogation under custody.
5,200/ out of Rs.12,500/ .
12,500/ from one Shri Rajendra Singh, owner of Pansari Shop, for sale of 87 MT Gas through BPLs and Kerbside Pump, kept by Dvr.
The respondents then preferred writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, which allowed the same by the judgment and order impugned by the appellant in this appeal before us.
The companyrt of inquiry deliberations was held by the authority between the period companymencing from 16.08.1988 and 12.12.1988.
5 that while working with A Coy 5033 ASC Bn MT , the appellant received Rs.
Arising out of S. L. P. C No.5536 of 2005 LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. Special leave granted.
After the appellant showed cause on 13.08.1991 which was found unsatisfactory, the respondent No.5 discharged him from service on 09.09.1991.
Gde 11 Ramakant Prasad of A Coy 5033 ASC Bn MT .
for recording summary evidence.
The evidence was companylected by the companyrt of inquiry against the appellant and some other Army Officials.
Further, it was observed that the Army Authority was number prevented from taking appropriate steps against the appellant in accordance with law, if they so advised and technicalities alone ought number to stand in the way in that regard.
On 26.09.1980, the appellant was appointed as Cleaner in ClassIV with the Indian Armed Forces.
The appellant later on deposited Rs.
This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred by Ram Sunder Ram appellant herein against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2004 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta by which M.A.T. No.2856 of 1997 filed by the Union of India and Others respondents herein was allowed and the judgment and order dated 07.08.1997 of a learned Single Judge, allowing the Writ Petition C.O. No.12843 W No.1991 filed by the appellant, was set aside.
Gde 11 Ramakant Prasad of A Coy 5033 ASC Bn MT .
In writ appeal, the order of the learned Single Judge came to be set aside by a Division Bench of the High Court and the Writ Petition filed by the appellant was accordingly dismissed.
The appellant filed writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta for setting aside the order of discharge from the Army Service passed by the Commander, 33 Corps Artillery Brigade respondent No.5 in the present appeal who was companypetent authority under Rule 13 of the Army Rules 1954.
On 03.07.1991, the appellant was informed by respondent No.
The learned Single Judge, as stated above, set aside the said order of discharge inter alia on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and directed the respondents to reinstate the appellant with 25 of his arrear salaries as per the last pay drawn.
He was, therefore, asked to show cause within 15 days of the receipt of the numberice as to why his services should number be terminated for the lapse companymitted by him.
