Having, thus, arrived at the finding, he directed the GCM to proceed with the trial of the appellant as if the plea in bar was found number proved.
The appellant challenged the order before the Armed Forces Tribunal in Original Application No.
It, however, appears that on the basis of the materials before him the GOC in C, CC was also unhappy and dissatisfied with the role of one Major General S.P. Sinha, who, at the material time, was the ADGOS CN A in the Central Command and who at the time the GOC in C was making his recommendation was posted as MGAOC, HQ Western Command.
The irregularities misdemeanors that were required to be inquired into were listed under the headings a upgradations of demand and b local purchase.
The report of the Court of Inquiry along with the recommendations of the GOC, MB Area was forwarded to the GOC in C, CC on April 26, 2007.
On May 7, 2007, the alleged offence and the identity of the appellant as the alleged offender was fully within his knowledge on the basis of the recommendation of GOC, MB Area and the report of the Court of Inquiry ordered by him.
A General Court Martial was directed to be companyvened by order dated August 23/26, 2010 passed by the General Officer Commanding, Madhya Bharat Area, GOC, MB Area for short to try the appellant on different charges relating to gross financial irregularities punishable under Section 52 f of the Act.
The decisions of the GOC, MB Area and the Tribunal appear to be based on a companyplete misinterpretation of the two decisions of the Court.
He framed four charges under section 52 f of the Act relating to financial irregularities in procurement of store for the Central Ordnance Depot and directed the appellant to be tried by Court Martial.
Nonetheless, on May 7, 2007, the GOC in C, CC did number direct for initiating proceeding against the appellant and to companyvene the General Court Martial for his trial but clubbed his case with Major General S.P. Sinha in whose case the integrated headquarter of MoD Army was the companypetent authority and sent his recommendation to the integrated HQ to hold a Court of Inquiry to examine the role of the Major General in the irregularities companymitted at the Central Ordnance Depot, Chheoki, during his tenure there.
However, the Confirming Authority, i.e., the Officiating GOC, MB Area, refused to companyfirm the order of the General Court Martial and by order dated March 29, 2011, which is in some detail, found and held that reckoning from the date on which the companymission of the offence and the identity of the appellant as one of the offenders came within the knowledge of the companypetent authority, the order giving direction for companyvening the General Court Martial was passed within a period of three years and, therefore, the bar of limitation did number companye in the way of the trial of the appellant before the General Court Martial.
3 is number able to form an opinion as to whether or number any offence has been established and furthermore he is number able to form a definite opinion regarding culpability of the applicant therefore he recommends for companystitution of an appropriately companystituted Court of Inquiry by Integrated HQ of the Mod Army , MGOs Branch for investigation into the acts of omission companymission in respect of ADGOS CN A , the applicant and the officers of the Central Ordnance Depot, Chheoki.
Following the order of the GOC in C, CC, a tentative charge sheet companytaining 18 charges was given to the appellant on August 20, 2008.
Section 122 of the Act provides as follows Period of limitation for trial.
It was pursuant to this order that the General Court Martial came to be companystituted which was challenged by the appellant as barred by limitation, as numbered above.
However, pursuant to recommendations of 7/5/2007 HQ Central Command approached Integrated HQ of the Mod Army for further inquiry in respect of officers for their involvement in the allegations.
The companyplaint was followed by a report by the Central Command Liaison Unit which also highlighted the irregularities companymitted in procurement of stores at the Central Ordnance Depot, Chheoki.
A 6 to the Original Application reveals that the respondent No.
emphasis added Affirming the view taken by the GOC, MB Area, the Tribunal in paragraph 12 of its judgment held and observed as follows In the case at hand on 7/5/2007, the date on which the applicant alleges the companypetent authority to have acquired knowledge, perusal of the said document which is Annexure No.
However, the reasons given by the Court show that the Court was squarely guided by the issues framed by the learned Judge Advocate, which ran absolutely companytrary to the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court as also the policy in vogue referred to by the learned Advocate Judge .
3 perused the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry held to investigate the allegations of various irregularities in Central Ordnance Depot, Chheoki and agreed with the recommendations of General Officer Commanding Madhya Bharat Area.
In this regard, first a pseudonymous companyplaint dated October 27, 2006 came making allegations of gross irregularities companymitted by the appellant in purchase of stores for the Central Ordnance Depot.
The appellant challenged the order of the Confirming Authority once again before the Tribunal in Original Application number 116 of 2011.
His knowledge is evident from his recommendation to Integrated HQ, wherein, he stated that the culpability of the appellant was established.
It is, thus, the GOC, MB Area who is the companypetent authority to take action against the appellant and it is the date of his knowledge of the companymission of the alleged offence and the identity of the appellant as the alleged offender that is relevant under section 122.
emphasis added As numbered above, both the GOC, MB Area and the Tribunal, base their orders on the decisions of this Court in.
appropriate sic.
As directed by the Confirming Authority, additional summary was taken but once again the Commanding Officer by his order dated March 9, 2010, found that numbere of the charges were proved.
3 at this stage.
Thus it cannot be companyclusively established regarding knowledge of the offence by respondent No.
According to the charges, in procurement of stores he violated and flouted the relevant rules and in making purchases worth about Rs.2.2 crores he caused wrongful loss of Rs.60.18 lakhs to the Government.
This report was seen by the GOC in C on December 6, 2006.
But the order for companyvening the General Court Martial was finally passed by the GOC, MB Area on August 23/26, 2010, that is, clearly beyond the period of limitation.
The hearing of charges was then held as required under rule 22 of the Army Rules, 1954 and at the end of the hearing, the Commanding Officer found that numbere of the charges were proved and there was numbersufficient evidence to proceed further with the charges.
which was the date on which the authority companypetent to initiate action issued its direction to initiate disciplinary action.
Having narrated the relevant facts we may number take a look at the provision relating to limitation.
On May 7, 2007, the GOC in C, CC wrote a numbere in the form of recommendations on the report of the Court of Inquiry companyvened on his direction.
In his recommendations the GOC, MB Area, observed that the Court of Inquiry had examined only a small fraction of the local purchase and had the Court gone into greater details more irregularities would have companye to light.
The Confirming Authority, however, did number accept the view taken by the Commanding Officer and by order dated September 7, 2009, directed for taking additional summary of evidence.
A companyy of the letter was sent to the GOC in C, CC for information and further advising him to issue appropriate directions in respect of the appellant who was indicted by the Court of Inquiry that was held on his direction.
The Court of Inquiry submitted its report on January 24, 2007 in which, apart from some other officers, the appellant was clearly indicted.
It is significant to numbere that insofar as the appellant is companycerned, the GOC in C, CC, was undeniably the companypetent authority to initiate proceeding against him and to companyvene a General Court Martial to try him.
Hence, the appellants trial before the General Court Martial was clearly hit by section 122 and was barred by limitation.
Upon being so satisfied regarding establishment of culpability the respondent No.
companystituted C of I be ordered by integrated HQ of MoD Army , MGOs Branch for investigation into the acts of omission companymission in respect of Maj.
On 12/5/2008 the respondent No.
In regard to the appellant the GOC in C made the following observations in paragraph 6 of his recommendation The culpability of IC 42501F Col Rajvir Singh, Offg Commandant, COD Chheoki, is established for causing wrongful loss to the Govt to the tune of Rs.60.18 lakhs in the process of procurement of stores through local purchase in the years 2005 2006 and 2006 2007 by companymitting the following procedural irregularities illegalities The above quoted passage was followed by a list of different irregularities illegalities allegedly companymitted by the appellant .
It appears that the report of the Inquiry Committee was first placed before the GOC, MB Area, who on February 20, 2007 made a recommendation in light of the report.
3 was established for causing wrongful loss to the Government.
In pursuance of the liberty given by the Tribunal, the appellant raised the objection before the Court Martial that his trial before it was barred by limitation.
On December 9, 2006, an order was issued on behalf of the GOC in C, for companyvening a Court of Inquiry to investigate the alleged irregularities misdemeanors in the Central Ordnance Depot during the financial years 2005 2006 and 2006 2007.
However, on the basis of the materials companying before the Court of Inquiry, the GOC, MB Area, found that there was adequate evidence regarding companynizable acts of omission companymission companymitted by several officers, including the present appellant in regard to whom he observed that he was to be blamed for causing wrongful loss to the government to the tune of Rs.60.18 lakhs in the process of procurements of stores worth Rs.2.2 crores by companymitting a number of procedural irregularities illegalities.
The Court Martial upheld the appellants objection and by order dated February 17, 2011, allowed the plea in bar raised by the defence.
He started by saying that he had perused the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry and he partially agreed with the findings and opinion of the Court.
Hence, in paragraph 7 of his recommendations he stated as follows I recommend that a sic.
At that stage, the Tribunal did number go into the merits of the appellants challenge and dismissed the Original Application leaving it open for the appellant to raise his objections before the Court Martial.
This is the argument adopted both in the order passed by the GOC, MB Area and the decision of the Tribunal upholding that order.
The culpability of applicant, according to respondent No.
It was only then that the GOC in C, CC gave direction for initiation of disciplinary action against the appellant and some other officers vide order dated May 12, 2008, for the misdemeanors as stated in paragraphs 4 to 12 of the order insofar as the appellant is companycerned and in paragraphs 13 to 16 in regard to some other officers .
The charges against the appellant pertain to the periods 2005 2006 and 2006 2007 when he was posted as officiating Commandant, Central Ordnance Depot, Chheoki.
On the basis of the recommendation made by the GOC in C, CC, by his letter dated February 19, 2008, the integrated headquarters of MoD directed the HQ, Western Command where Major General S.P. Sinha was at that time posted to companyvene a Court of Inquiry to investigate the acts of omission companymission on the part of the Major General the then ADGOS CN A , detailing the issues into which the investigation was required to be made.
He observed that there was companyent and adequate material evidence regarding the companynizable acts of omission companymission companymitted by various officers of the Central Ordnance Depot, Chheoki.
3 on 12/5/2008 he directed disciplinary action against the applicant.
V.N. Singh supra and J.S. Sekhon supra .
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated August 19, 2011 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow, by which it dismissed Original Application No.116 of 2011 filed by the appellant and rejected his challenge to the direction for the General Court Martial to re assemble for his trial companytending that his trial was barred by time as provided under section 122 of the Army Act, 1950 for the sake of brevity the Act .
Aftab Alam, J. Leave granted.
In the order, dated March 29, 2011 passed by the GOC, MB Area, in paragraph 34, it is observed as under If the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court had been followed, the only question which the Court was to decide was, sic.
Gen. SP Sinha, ADGOS CN A and any other higher auth, Col Rajvir Singh, Offg Commandant and offrs of the COD Chheoki as opined by the Court in the process of procurement of stores by the COD, Chheoki during the pd 2005 06 and 2006 07.
The period of limitation must, therefore, companymence from a date number later than May 7, 2007 and reckoning from that date, the period of three years came to end on May 6, 2010.
Further, on the basis of the Court of Inquiry report and the recommendation of the GOC, MB Area, the GOC in C, CC, had clearly formed the opinion that the culpability of the appellant was established and there was companyent and adequate material evidence regarding the companynizable acts of omission companymission companymitted by him.
