The submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant is that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice in companyducting the Summary Court Martial.
The appellant sought the assistance of a civil advocate which was denied.
The appellant was enrolled as a Sepoy on 1 January, 2003 in the Indian Army.
The submission is based on the provisions of Rule 129 of the Army Rules, 1954.
The Summary Court Martial acquitted the appellant of the second charge, but he was found guilty of the first charge of misconduct.
He was awarded a punishment of dismissal from service and six months rigorous imprisonment in civil jail.
Aggrieved by the punishment, the appellant moved the Armed Forces Tribunal, which dismissed the Original Application.
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. The appellant has challenged the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Lucknow dated 18 December, 2012 in O.A. No.
48/2010, by which his challenge to the punishment of dismissal and six months rigorous imprisonment imposed by a Summary Court Martial has been rejected.
The punishment of imprisonment has already been undergone.
A Summary Court Martial was companyvened on two charges the first being of an assault on a superior officer while the second was the use of abusive language against a Signature Not Verified Subedar who had found the appellant to be number properly dressed Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR RAKHEJA Date 2018.12.14 194232 IST Reason for the parade.
