The High Court permitted the Appellants to proceed under Rule 22 with the companydition that numberreliance can be placed on the old Court of Inquiry.
In the meanwhile, the Respondent retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2009.
She relied on the statement of objects and reasons of the Act to submit that jurisdiction is companyferred on the Tribunal only for adjudication of companyplaints and disputes regarding service matters and appeals arising out of the verdicts of the Court Martial.
However, an option was given to the Appellants to either hold a fresh Court of Inquiry after companyplying with Rule 180 of the Army Rules or to proceed directly under Rule 22 by hearing the charge without relying on the Court of Inquiry.
In the year 2005, the Chief of the Army Staff directed an investigation by the Court of Inquiry into the allegations pertaining to irregularities in procurement of ration, as a result of which the quality of supplies for the troops was companypromised.
The evidence of DW 1, Mr. P.V.D. Prasada Rao, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture Cooperation, New Delhi was recorded in the summary of evidence and was perused by the Tribunal.
A hearing of the charge under Rule 22 against the Respondent was companyvened on 08.12.2008 and recording of summary of evidence under Rule 23 of the Army Rules was ordered against the Respondent on 24.12.2008.
The Court of Inquiry was re constituted pursuant to the option given by the High Court.
Later, the Appellants sought a modification of the order dated 29.07.2008 and informed the High Court that proceedings would be initiated under Rule 22 of the Army Rules since most of the 2 Page officers involved had already retired and that it would be difficult to re constitute a Court of Inquiry.
The Tribunal, according to Ms. Rai, did number have jurisdiction to entertain the O.A. at the interlocutory stage.
The General Court Martial was companyvened by a letter dated 23.02.2010.
Twenty three witnesses were examined by the Court of Inquiry.
A Court of Inquiry was companyvened on 10.10.2005 by the General Officer Commanding in Chief GOC in C Western Command to identify the Army personnel responsible for the aforementioned irregularities.
An attempt was made by the Respondent to challenge the findings of the GOC in C, Western Command, but in vain.
However, Section 123 of the Army Act, 1950 was invoked by the Appellants to companytinue the proceedings against the Respondent.
Disciplinary action was also initiated against the Respondent by the GOC in C, Western Command on 14.06.2006 which was challenged by the Respondent by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi.
He also sought for quashing the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry, summary of evidence and the companyclusion of the GOC in C, Western Command holding him prima facie guilty.
The order of the Chief of the Army Staff by which companynizance was taken of the offences and the attachment order issued on 26.09.2008 were the subject matter of another Writ Petition filed by the Respondent in the High Court of Delhi, which was dismissed on 03.10.2008.
The Commanding Officer of the Respondent i.e. General Officer Commanding GOC , 15 Infantry Division found that numberoffence was prima facie made out against the Respondent.
By an order dated 11.01.2007, the High Court quashed the Court of Inquiry on the ground that Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954 hereinafter, the Army Rules was violated.
The GOC in C, Western Command examined 3 Page the matter and the recommendations made by the GOC, 15 Infantry Division and GOC, 15 Corps.
The 4 Page Appellants made an attempt to obtain leave to Appeal under Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 hereinafter, the Act to approach this Court, which was number entertained.
He disagreed with the views taken by the GOC, 15 Infantry Division and GOC, 15 Corps and arrived at a companyclusion that a prima facie case was made out against the Respondent.
According to her, the A. in this case was filed under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act against an order by which the Court Martial was companyvened.
The Respondent filed O.A. No.147 of 2010, assailing the validity of the order companyvening the General Court Martial.
The Respondent who was working as the Chief Director of Purchase CDP , Army Purchase Organisation, Ministry of Defence was one out of the twelve persons against whom a prima facie case was found.
THIRD CHARGE AA SEC.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the above Appeal is filed.
The Court of Inquiry identified Twelve Army personnel who were prima facie responsible for the said improprieties.
He also sought promotion to the rank of Major General along with his batchmates.
He further questioned the invocation of Section 123 of the Army Act against him to companytinue the proceedings even after his retirement.
Even the seventh charge pertaining to the issuance of letters on 02.08.2005, 12.09.2005 and 13.09.2005 without taking into account the existing guidelines regarding the price reduction in R.P. companytracts was held in favour of the Respondent by the Tribunal.
For the aforesaid reasons, the submission of the Appellants that the Respondent was under an obligation to protest the violation of guidelines by 10 P a g e the DGST was number accepted by the Tribunal.
On the basis of the above evidence, the Tribunal found that numberprima facie case was made out against the Respondent and the charges framed against him were found unsustainable.
According to her, a verdict is a final judgment or order passed by the Court Martial and as 11 P a g e such, an order by which the General Court Martial was companyvened cannot be the subject matter of an appeal before the Tribunal.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. The Union of India is in Appeal against the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi hereinafter, the Tribunal quashing the order dated 23.02.2010, by which General Court Martial was companyvened against the Respondent.
The said view was approved by the GOC, 15 Corps on 28.04.2009.
Consequently, the charges were quashed.
