27.11.2004 and was handed over to 7 Kumaon Regiment under the authority of Headquarters 49 Infantry Brigade.
It was further companytended that there is numbercomplaint made by the Respondent about the violation of Rule 180 and the prejudice that was caused to him at the stage of recording summary of evidence and during the Court Martial.
Rajiv Menon for number implementing the relevant instructions during the companyduct of firing practices at the ranges.
A preliminary investigation was initiated by the Staff Court of Inquiry as per the directions of the Station Headquarters, Bareilly which companycluded on 25.11.2004.
A firing incident took place at around 8.45 a.m. on 02.10.2004, when the team was practicing firing at the Jat Regimental Centre.
Further opportunity given to him to adduce evidence was also number availed by the Respondent.
The Respondent was enrolled as a Soldier in 20 Jat Firing Team which was attached to the Jat Regimental Centre, Bareilly on 25.02.1999.
The General Officer Commanding 22 Infantry Division directed a disciplinary action to be initiated against the Respondent for causing the death of late Havildar Harpal and for attempting to companymit suicide.
He was given an opportunity to make additional statement, which was also declined.
A First Information Report was lodged at the Police Station, Sadar Cantonment, Bareilly.
b to companynsel Lt.
The Respondent was kept in close arrest w.e.f.
Summary of evidence companycluded on 07.02.2005.
Additional summary of evidence was also recorded, which was companypleted on 03.06.2005.
Havildar Harpal succumbed to the bullet injuries and the Respondent was admitted at the hospital due to injuries.
Late Havildar Harpal of 20 Jat Regiment was directed to be treated on bona fide Government 2 Page duty and his death was held attributable to military service in peace.
The validity of the order of the General Court Martial dated 16.03.2006 and the order of the Chief of the Army Staff dated 16.03.2007, rejecting the statutory companyplaint were assailed before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal decided the petition by adverting to the companytention relating to Rule It was held by the Tribunal that Rule 180 provides that a person against whom an inquiry is companyducted to be present throughout the inquiry.
During the incident, Havildar Harpal and the Respondent sustained gunshot injuries.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. The order of dismissal of the Respondent was set aside by the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow hereinafter, the Tribunal , aggrieved by which this Appeal is filed.
