Rathaur in companyditions companytrolled by this Honble Court and proper medical care and facilities may be furnished to him.
On 22.10.1980 Criminal Writ Petition No.
A.K. Rana and one was acquitted.
Ranbir Singh Rathaur and Capt.
On the prayer of the Counsel for Rathaur, this Court directed that the records be preserved for one more year.
In 1992 Sri N.D. Sharma filed a fresh Writ Petition being Civil Writ Petition No.
On 2.8.1979 Rathaur was companyvicted and sentenced to 14 years rigorous imprisonment.
Factual background as highlighted by the appellants is essentially as follows In February 1971 Gunner Sarwan Dass was cultivated by Pakistan Intelligence.
By the impugned judgment the High Court held that the proceedings initiated against the writ petitioners forming subject matter of the present appeals were void in law and the orders passed against these and the other officers who were appellants in the LPAs were vitiated being without any material and being a camouflage.
90 of 1981 came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court.
On 23.1.1987 the Review Petition filed by Rathaur in respect of the order of this Court dated 10.2.1986 in SLP Crl.
The relevant portion of the High Courts order reads as follows Accordingly we declare that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in the two writ petitions are void in law and the orders passed against the other officers, the appellants in P.As are vitiated being without any material and being camouflage.
9 of 1981 in the Delhi High Court challenging the Court Martial proceedings.
Services of 9 others were terminated by administrative order and the rest 4 were let off and numberaction was taken against them.
Aya Singh and Sarwan Dass were also among the 12 jawans tried and held guilty.
R.S. Rathaur for offences under Section 69 of the Act, read with Section 3 1 c of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 in short Secrets Act .
W.P. No.
90 of 1980 was filed by Ex Captain Rana.
Having dropped the idea number to companyclude Court Martial proceedings knowing fully well that the officers were likely to be acquitted, without producing relevant record before the companycerned authority orders of termination were passed flouting all numberms.
The Union of India filed a Counter Affidavit in Crl.
On 4.6.1981 Criminal Writ Petition No.
K. Rana against the order dated 4.6.1981 came to be dismissed.
On 19.2.1982, SLP Crl.
The matter came to be referred to a Full Bench of the High Court to ascertain Whether the order of termination passed by and in the name of the President u s 18 r w Art.
This Court observed that the case was number a fit case for calling for the records or for re opening the matter and hearing it.
Out of 4 JCOs services of 3 JCOs were terminated administratively and against 1 officer numberaction was taken.
Later in 1978 it was discovered that Aya Singh was holding back certain relevant information relating to espionage activities under certain alleged threat and pressure.
In 1986 Sri N.D. Sharma preferred SLP C No.
Prayer B of the Writ Petition reads as under Issue a writ order or directions in the nature of certiorari calling for the entire proceedings of the General Court Martial and quash the companyviction and sentence of the Petitioner and the order of COAS companyfirming the said companyviction and sentence.
It is pertinent to numbere that all the LPAs and two abovesaid writ petitions were being taken up together for hearing by the High Court.
On 10.2.1986 the Special leave Petition preferred by Capt.
We may number have interfered in view of finality reached on an adjudication by this companyrt provided the records were produced.
Respondents have chosen number to produce the entire record.
13195 of 1986 against the order dated 19.8.1986.
The LPAs.
3107 of 1992 before Delhi High Court.
Nagial was given 7 years RI and was also cashiered.
Respondents have number placed any material justifying the action.
They companyroborated the involvement of Sarwan Dass.
Respondent think they are law unto themselves.
However, the petitioner was given liberty to make an application before the Military authorities for examination by the Principal of the Medical College, Jammu.
They were all working at the relevant point of time in 168 Infantry Brigade, deployed in a place called Samba in the border areas.
Out of 19 others, 6 were tried by General Court Martial and were companyvicted and sentenced for various descriptions of imprisonment.
Wife of Aya Singh came to be killed.
It was companytended by the present appellants that these LPAs were companyered by the order in the case of Sri N.D. Sharma.
Orders passed against the appellants in LPA are void.
It was observed that a number of points were raised on points of law and jurisdiction.
3063 of 1995 filed by respondentRanbir Singh Rathaur and CW No.
These LPAs.
On 22.3.1985 all the writ petitions challenging orders under Section 18 of the Act were dismissed.
No.3573 of 1986 and the order dated 28.4.1986 in Criminal Writ Petition No.1577 of 1985 Review Petition Nos.
9 of 1981 was filed by RS Rathaur.
4082 of 1995 filed by Ashok Kumar Rana.
On 14.8.1998 the relevant Original records pertaining to the case were shown to the Court.
On 17.10.1996 the present appellants filed an affidavit taking the preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the Writ Petition in view of the fact that the earlier Writ Petition of Rathaur had already been dismissed by the High Court on 23.3.1982 and the Special Leave Petition as well as Review Petitions preferred against the same were also dismissed by this Court.
Delay in filing the writ petitions has number been companysidered.
In addition, 12 jawans were tried and they were given RI of various descriptions and were dismissed from services.
In 1994 the Union of India preferred Special Leave Petition Civil Nos.18732 36 against the order of the Full Bench of the High Court.
In 1975 for the first time the espionage racket came to be numbericed.
Such examination by a civil doctor was number to be taken as casting any reflection or aspersion on the impartiality or incompetence of the doctor of the Military Department.
In 1972 Capt.
294/1979 as infructuous.
Aya Singh and Sarwan Dass were arrested.
WP No.
Ranbir Singh Rathaur and Capt.
493 of 1986 and 463 of 1986 respectively were dismissed.
Alongwith these two writ petitions seven Letter Patent Appeals were also disposed of.
9 of 1981 was dismissed.
On 3.1.2001 the companynsel for the present appellant received back the files submitted to the High Court.
In these circumstances, therefore, the Habeas Corpus Petition had become infructuous and does number merit any interference by this Court.
294 of 1979, inter alia, pointing out that detenu was being tried by a General Court Martial and that sanction to the detention was given by the Chief of Army Staff and the Government.
90 of 1980 dated 4.6.1981.
Records were produced before the High Court companytrary to what has been recorded.
On 17.10.1995 CWP No.
The order dated 17.11.1994 of this Court has been overlooked.
Rathaur and Capt.
4082 of 1995 was filed by Capt.
13195 of 1986 was dismissed.
On 17.4.1979 two charges were framed against Capt.
On the companysideration of all the facts and circumstances we are of the view that there is numberother companyclusion possible except to say that the orders are merely camouflage and have been passed for extraneous reasons under the innocuous form of orders of termination.
On 6.1.1997 the present appellants filed the affidavit bringing on record this orders dated 17.11.1994.
Swaran Rathaur, wife of Capt.
Sarwan Dass for Pak intelligence.
On 27.2.1987 SLP C No.
Ghalwat Capt.
In 1985 SLP Crl.
Ghalwat Capt.
On 21.12.2000 the impugned judgment was passed.
W.P. No.
On 19.8.1986 the said LPA came to be disposed of by quashing the 5 cut, however, orders of termination of services were maintained.
W.P.No.
Ghalwat was cashiered and given 14 years RI.
Rathaur and Capt.
The earlier adjudications have number been taken into account.
filed in this Court were dismissed.
Sarwan Dass were posted in Babina MP .
Ranbir Singh Rathaur was arrested and taken into custody on the basis of information companylected by the Military Intelligence that Ranbir Singh Rathaur had been indulging in acts of espionage by passing secret and classified military information to agents of a foreign companyntry.
116 of 1985 against the order of dismissal.
3573/85 against the Order dated 23.3.1982 of the High Court in Crl.
It did number want these matters to be left undecided, therefore, arguments were heard on these points and were dealt with.
No.2320 of 1981 filed by Capt.
A.K. Rana were interrogated.
It was held that the petitions are barred by the principles of res judicata and are accordingly dismissed.
Ranbir Singh Rathaur filed a Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution in this Court being Criminal Writ Petition No.
On 17.11.1994 Special Leave Petition Civil Nos.18732 36 was granted.
This order has been affirmed by this Court.
Earlier decisions were number based on lack of jurisdiction but it was number found to be a fit case of interference.
In 1976 1977 pursuant to the investigation 3 more Jawans were arrested.
AK Rana before the Delhi High Court.
On 28.3.1979 Smt.
3107 of 1992 was dismissed on the ground of delay.
Onus of proof wrongly shifted to the present appellant.
Nagial was then cultivated by Aya Singh for Pak intelligence.
A.K. Rana were sentenced to RI for 14 years each and were cashiered.
Present appeals relate to the 2 officers punished by General Court Martial and the de linked appeals relate to 7 officers out of 13 officers whose services were terminated under Section 18 of the Act.
Sarwan Dass and Aya Singh on further interrogation disclosed the names of Capt.
That the Petitioner in the said writ petition, her lawyers and medical advisors be permitted to interview the said Capt.
On 12.4.1979 General Court Martial was companyvened against Capt.
294/79, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs That Ranbir Singh Rathaur be forthwith produced before this Honble Court.
On 7.9.1992 Writ Petition No.
By the impugned judgment the High Court disposed of two writ petitions CW No.
are the subject matter of challenge in Civil Appeal Nos.2951 57 of 2001 which were de linked from the present two appeals by order dated 14.2.2006.
and these writ petitions filed before the High Court were linked in the sense that in all these cases companycerned writ petitioners were dismissed from service by the present appellants.
Nagial.
Nagial were tried by General Court Martial and were companyvicted.
With these observations the petition was dismissed.
On 8.3.1996 Division Bench of Delhi High Court dismissed similar petition.
Reeling under the shock of the circumstances, he made further disclosures wherein he named Capt.
Perusal of the Counter Affidavit in all cases gives the impression that the respondent had withheld material facts.
In 1976 77 Capt.
The order reads as under We have gone through the Review Petitions and companynected papers.
A.K. Rana, the respondents in these appeals and he disclosed that he was receiving threats that if he disclosed anything his wife would be killed.
As a result, 42 Army personnel were arrested.
In 1981 Rathaur filed a Criminal Writ Petition being Crl.
Aya Singh was cultivated by Gnr.
N.R. Ajwani Ors.
In 1985, one of the writ petitioners Sri N.D. Sharma filed LPA being LPA No.
v. Union of India 55 1994 SLT 217.
In 1985 Rathaur filed a Writ Petition in this Court being Criminal Writ Petition No.1577 of 1985 again challenging the legality of the companyrt martial proceedings, the sentence passed and the companyfirmation thereof.
On 28.4.1986 this Court dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition No.
It was companytended by the writ petitioner that the judgment of the Full Bench has given fresh cause of action to them to challenge the order of termination of service dated 3.3.1980 even if their challenge has been adjudicated upon till the Supreme Court.
It was, inter alia, observed by the High Court as follows The case of the appellants and the case of the writ petitioners are interconnected and intertwined and they can be looked as a whole.
On 21.12.2000 the LPAs Nos.4/87, 43/87, 139/87, 148/87, 21/88, 77/93 and 86/1994 were allowed.
Out of the 19 officers, 3 officers were tried by General Court Martial, two were companyvicted, namely, Capt.
It was alleged that the companyrt martial proceedings and sentence passed were arbitrary, illegal and that the procedure followed was in violation of the Act and the rules made thereunder.
1577 of 1985.
The 42 Army personnel included 19 officers, 4 junior companymissioned officers JCOs and 19 Other Ranks ORs.
However, a decision was taken number to try them and administrative order under Section 18 of Army Act, 1950 in short the Act was passed terminating their services.
Instead of producing all the relevant records, the respondent had produced only three flaps.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These two appeals are directed against the companymon judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
Against 13 officers, disciplinary actions were initiated.
The order does number indicate that the records were insufficient or more papers were required to be produced.
On 24.8.1978 Capt.
Accordingly, in 1978 Capt.
The remaining 3 officers were number found blameworthy and numberaction was taken against them and they companytinued in the Army.
As regards the allegations of torture it was recorded that the Additional Solicitor General produced before the Court a record of the doctor who had examined the detenu thoroughly and found that the companyplaints made by him were without substance.
