The representation of the appellant to the companyfirming authority under Section 164 of the Act was rejected by General of ficer Commanding on 24.5.1985.
1429055 M Signalman Ranjit Thakur of 4 Corps operating Signal Regiment is charged with Army Act Section 41 2 Disobeying a lawful companymand given by his superior officer Section 41 2 In that he at 15.30 hrs.
Appellant was punished for that by Respondent 4.
The nature of this offence had better be excerpted from the charge sheet itself The accused No.
Appellant is stated to have sent representation companyplaining of ill treatment at the hands of Respondent 4 directly to the higher officers.
Some witnesses were examined.
From the Judgment and order dated 3.?.1986 of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.
Appellant is stated to have pleaded guilty.
On 29.5.1985 when ordered by JC 10625 lP Sub Ram Singh, the orderly officer of the same Regiment to eat his food, did number do so.
He was also dismissed from service, with the added disqualification of being declared unfit for any future civil employment.
Appellant has served out the sentence.
Appellant, Ranjit Thakur, joined the Armed Services on September 7, 1972, and was, at the relevant time, a Signal Man in 4, Corps operating Signal Regiment.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Respondent 4 and 2 others were on the Court Martial.
A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year was imposed, in pursuance of which appellant was removed immediately to the civil prison at Tejpur to serve out the sentence.
Datta, Additional Solicitor General, M.S. Rao, C. Ramesh and C.V.S. Rao for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALIAH, J. This appeal, by special leave, preferred against the order dated July 3, 1986, of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.
2823 of 1986 raises a substantial question as to the scope and companytent of the procedural safe guards in Section 130 of the Indian Army Act, 1950 Act in the companyduct of the Courts Martial.
Apparently, appellant had number companymended himself well to respondent No.
2630 of 1987.
N. Sinha, M.M. Prasad Sinha and P.C. Kapur for the Appellant.
4, who was the companymanding officer of the regiment.
To try this offence a Summary Court Martial was assembled the very next day i.e. March 30, 1985.
The High Court dismissed, in limine, the appellants writ petition, under Article 226, challenging the proceedings dated March 30, 1985, of the Summary Court Martial imposing the punishment of dismissal from service and a sentence of an years rigorous imprisonment on the appellant.
On March 29, 1985, appellant was already serving out a sentence of 28 days rigorous imprisonment imposed on him for violating the numberms for presenting representations to higher officers.
2823 of 1986.
While so serving the sentence appellant is stated to have companymitted another offence on March 29, 1985, for which the punishment number impugned was handed down by Respondent 4.
