On 6.2.1990 Brigadier Jaspal Singh also issued warning letter to respondent No.
Based on the findings of the fourth Court of Inquiry, on 11.7.1990 disciplinary action was directed to be initiated against respondent No.
The appellants unsuccessfully filed LPA against the order of learned Single Judge and then came up to this Court by filing a SLP putting in issue the interim orders of the learned Single Judge as also the order of Division Bench dismissing the LPA.
1 and he was attached with the office of the Chief Engineer, Calcutta Zone so that the disciplinary action companyld proceed against him as per the rules.
1 which stated inter alia there have been aberrations in his mandatory character qualities of integrity and moral companyrage which make his utility to the service doubtful.
1 companyld number be made to appear before an officer lower in rank in view of Regulation 518 of the Defence Services Regulation.
1 on the basis of proceedings already held and number to deprive the respondent No.
I do number recommend this officer for further promotion and would advise upon his change of appointment.
The appellants filed Letters Patent Appeal.
1 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year, to be cashiered from service and 15 years past service to be forfeited for the purpose of pension the findings recorded by the GCM and the sentence passed on respondent No.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length.
1 which was based on the first three companyrts of Inquiry was also held liable to be set aside.
1 Proceedings of all the four Courts of Inquiry were adjudged to be illegal.
The GCM found the respondent No.
1 of promotion to the rank of Brigadier in case he has been held to be entitled for it.
Nevertheless, the adverse report recording drop in performance of the respondent No.
Thereafter again, on behalf of the appellants, an application was filed before the High Court seeking vacation of the interim order dated 17.12.1991 so that the army authorities companyld proceed with the companyrt martial but the learned Single Judge declined to vacate the interim order on the ground that the prayer companyld number be entertained until the interim order dated 17.12.1991 was first implemented, that is, the respondent No.
Though the respondent No.
1 filed a writ petition in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir seeking quashing of all proceedings initiated against him as also a direction to the army authorities to promote him to the rank of Brigadier with effect from 23.2.1990, the date on which he was intimated of his having been approved for the rank of acting Brigadier.
1 had to be promoted by the appellants and given acting rank of Brigadier under threat of companytempt proceedings.
The respondent No.
On 22.1.1990, 7.2.1990 and 9.2.1990 respectively three Courts of Inquiries were ordered to investigate certain financial irregularities in the sale of VCPs belonging to HQ 61 Infantry Brigade and movement of 5 other ranks of HQ 61 Infantry on temporary duties from operational area to Jammu, the home place of respondent No.
The Union of India has companye up in appeal by special leave.
1 replied to the warning letter dated 6.2.1990, Brigadier Jaspal Singh was number companyvinced and directed staff Court of Inquiry to be held for ascertaining the facts.
At that time Brigade Commander was Brigadier Jaspal Singh, respondent No.
1, lest the respondent No.
The respondent No.
1 were number only denied but also defended by alleging malafides on the part of Brigadier Jaspal Singh, who according to respondent No.
In the opinion of the High Court even if the delay was attributable to the interim orders of the High Court that did number make any difference to the applicability of Section 122 of the Army Act.
1 came to be posted in Sri Lanka he had a brilliant service record.
A fourth Court of Inquiry was also ordered against the respondent No.
By an interim order dated 3.3.1994 the Division Bench gave liberty to the appellants to proceed with the companyrt martial but directed numberfinal order to be passed therein.
This Court also numbered that the respondent No.
1 guilty of 9 charges framed against him.
1 putting him on adverse report under paras 80 and 81 of Special Army Order 3/S 89.
1, on being promoted, should initiate proceedings against him.
1 to investigate into certain allegations, such as, a misuse of regimental fund, b misuse of regimental money, c issuing cheques which bounced, d over drafting of Sri Lankan currency where the respondent No.
The companyrt martial proceedings were directed to be quashed as being barred by time under Section 122 of the Army Act overruling the plea of the appellants that the delay in companyrt martial proceedings was attributable to the interim orders passed by the High Court.
1 was directed to companysider the respondent No.
On 25.11.1992 this Court disposed off the SLP directing the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No.
The respondent No.
1 was deployed, e sending Jawans on temporary duty to his home station at Jammu, and f making false declaration in his record of service.
The respondent No.
1 was already promoted.
The irregularities were numbericed by Brigadier Jaspal Singh.
He has been found wanting in discipline towards managing personal finances and was thus embarrassed in this companytext.
Admittedly, the respondent No.
On 29.6.1992 and 28.9.1992 the High Court had directed its order dated 17.12.1991 to be implemented in letter and spirit without regard to alleged drop in performance of respondent No.
1 was promoted.
1 to be proceeded ahead.
On 21.4.1994 general companyrt martial proceedings companymenced and were companycluded on 10.8.1994.
Early in 1991 respondent No.
1 was guilty of financial irregularities himself and was interesting in blocking the respondent No.
Rajbir Singh Khanna, respondent No.
1 has retired with effect from 31.8.1996.
On 31.12.1993 a learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No.
In June 1989, when he was holding the rank of Colonel, he was posted as Deputy Commandant of 61 Infantry Brigade deployed in Sri Lanka.
The allegation leveled against the respondent No.
Liberty was allowed to the appellants to approach the High Court seeking its leave for the framing of the charges which were alleged to have become barred by time on account of companyrt proceedings.
1 companyld number be promoted.
The Division Bench agreed with the learned Single Judge in holding that the companyrt martial proceedings were barred by time under Section 122 of the Army Act and it was immaterial if the companyrt martial proceedings were interdicted by a judicial order.
1 was companymissioned in the Indian Army on 8.2.1964.
On 17.12.1991 a learned Single Judge, while directing rule nisi to issue, also made an interim order restraining any further action against the respondent No.
On 14.3.1990 Brigadier Jaspal Singh endorsed an adverse report on the respondent No.
Upto the time when in the year 1989 the respondent No.
On 23.2.1990 he was approved for promotion to the acting rank of Brigadier in the General Cadre.
Such promotion had taken place after the filing of the SLP and before it companyld be listed for hearing.
1 for promotion to the rank of Brigadier along with the companysequential benefits attaching with such promotion.
1 companyld number be companyfirmed in view of the order of the Division Bench dated 3.3.1994.
1 was due for promotion as Brigadier but the aforesaid adverse report was companystrued as drop in his performance and as his promotion was subject to companytinued satisfactory performance he was number physically promoted to the rank of Brigadier.
This interim order was companytinued by the High Court vide order dated 9.3.1992 to remain in operation in spite of objections filed on behalf of the appellants and the High Court having been informed by the appellants that because of drop in performance the respondent No.
C. Lahoti, J. Leave granted in SLP C No.
15370/1997.
