1 sat in the front seat in civil dress while respondents 2 and 3 sat behind the body of the truck.
1 directed the driver to slow down and turn the vehicle towards the right and take it off on a narrow kutcha track number leading to Tezpur.
The respondents 2 and 3 got down and started unload ing some ration until they were prevented by the civilians present there.
When the vehicle reached the outskirts of village Eatavari, respondent No.
The decision of the Court Martial and the order of dismissal were challenged before the Guwahati High Court in a writ petition.
1s insistence the vehicle was so taken and on the kutcha track the vehicle bogged down mid way and companyld number be taken further.
372 of 1982.
By the time the vehicle reached Balipura, it had become dark and respondent No.
The civilians being suspicious informed the civil police, who in turn handed over the matter to military police for investigation and necessary action.
Respondent No.
A General Court Martial followed where definite charges were given and ultimately on the basis of summary evidence available all the three persons were found guilty, companyvicted and sentenced.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.8.
After due inquiry a disciplinary action was initiat ed and inquiry under Rule 22 of the Army Rules was undertak en.
1 goes there was an inquiry under Rule 22.
In the meantime, some civilian persons gathered there.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Respondent No.
1987 of the Assam High Court in Civil Rule No.
Anil Dev Singh and P. Parmeshwaran for the Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal is by special leave and is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Guwahati setting aside the order of companyviction and the punishment of imprisonment as also the order of dismissal from service inflicted on the three respondents following a finding of guilt by the General Court Martial.
The driver of the vehicle was number prepared to take the vehicle on the kutcha road but upon respondent No.
The High Court found that as against re spondents 2 and 3 there was numberinquiry under Rule 22.
Order of dismissal from service followed.
778 of 1988.
Naik Subedar Baleshwar Ram was a Junior Commissioned Officer of Amaribari Supply Point in the far eastern sector and was in overall charge of the said supply point.
K. Ganguli, I.A. Ansari and Ms. Mridula Ray for the Respondents.
Around 5.30 p.m. on June 19, 1980, he directed Driver Rattan Singh to park an army vehicle near the ration store for loading dry ration.
Respondent Ramji with the help of one labour from civilian side loaded the dry ration in the vehicle, whereafter Baleshwar Ram directed the truck to be taken towards Balipura.
1 ordered the driver to take the vehicle towards Tezpur.
