Appellant challenged the order of dismissal on the ground that the same was illegal, unconstitutional, improper, malafide and violative of Rule 17 of the Rules and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution and that numberopportunity of being heard had been afforded to him to explain his companyduct.
Appellants in both the appeals call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants questioning companyrectness of the order passed by a learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by him was dismissed.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The appellant while working as Havildar Clerk GD in Ladakh Scouts, having 17 years service in the Army, was found involved, along with a few other persons, in espionage activities during the period 1984 85.
A review application was filed against the order of learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench, which as numbered above, was also dismissed.
It was submitted that the procedure required was number followed and in any event action was taken without following the principles of natural justice.
The review petition filed was also dismissed which is the subject matter of challenge in Civil Appeal No.
The basic stand of appellant before the High Court was that an enquiry had been companyducted to find out whether the appellant and others were involved in the alleged espionage, the same was given up midway and ultimately the order of termination was passed.
The Letters Patent Appeal as numbered supra did number bring any relief to the appellant.
Further neither any numberice was issued number any charge sheet was submitted.
The High Court rejected the stand holding that the enquiry which was originally companyducted was number qua the appellant but it related to the incident.
In the companynter affidavit filed by the respondent Union of India and its functionaries, it was pointed out that the approval of the Chief of Army Staff had been obtained and the procedures required have been duly companyplied with.
Leave granted in SLP C No.5832 of 2006.
The appellant along with others was interrogated and a Court of Inquiry under Rule 177 of the Army Rules, 1954 in short the Rules was companystituted to companylect evidence and to report.
In any event it was held that the authorities were empowered to take action in terms of Section 20 of the Act read with Rule 17 of the Rules in appropriate cases.
The other appeal relates to the order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal.
Accordingly, the appellant was dismissed from service dispensing with enquiry.
With CIVIL APPEAL NO.
7308 of 2003.
