Delve into the case of alleged misconduct and financial impropriety as the Supreme Court of India orders the Court of Inquiry to be conducted again. The petitioner’s claims of victimization and violation of Army Rules are being examined closely, guaranteeing a just and transparent legal process.
Facts
- A prima facie case was made against the Appellant resulting in his attachment to Headquarters, 20 Mountain Division.
- The Appellant filed O.A. No. 85 of 2013 in the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi challenging the order of attachment, but it was dismissed at the admission stage.
- Aggrieved, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi.
- The Appellant is accused of various misconducts including accepting illegal gratifications and transferring money to his daughter.
- The General Officer Commanding 27 Mountain Division conducted a preliminary investigation to ascertain the correctness of the allegations.
- The Review Application challenging the Tribunal’s order was unsuccessfully challenged by the Respondent- Union of India.
- The Appellant contended that a copy of the one man inquiry report was not furnished, but the inquiry proceeded with evidence recording before his retirement.
- Brigadier R.K. Jha found acts and omissions by the Appellant including unauthorized taking of official property and pressurizing subordinates.
- A Court of Inquiry was convened based on preliminary investigations and verbal complaints against the Appellant.
- Despite contesting the initiation of disciplinary proceedings citing mala fide, the Appellant faced various accusations including misappropriation of property and acceptance of gratifications.
- The Appellant’s attempts to challenge the disciplinary actions through the Tribunal and High Court were dismissed, leading to the continuation of the investigation.
- Multiple instances of financial impropriety and misconduct are reported against the Appellant, leading to further investigations and hearings.
- Numerous witnesses were examined, and the Appellant retired from service amid the ongoing proceedings.
- The Appellant’s actions, including borrowing money and accepting favors from contractors, are under scrutiny, with allegations of influencing tender processes and misappropriation of funds.
- Various officers and non-commissioned officers reported incidents of financial impropriety and misconduct by the Appellant, leading to formal disciplinary actions and inquiries.
- Appellant was present throughout the Court of Inquiry proceedings and had the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
- Allegation of violation of Rule 180 by the Appellant was not accepted by the Tribunal.
- Disciplinary proceedings were delayed due to pending court cases.
- Appellant will receive a copy of the one man inquiry report.
- Appellant’s submission of mala fide against him was rejected by the Tribunal.
- High Court stayed further proceedings against the Appellant on 29.04.2013.
Also Read: DHFL Moratorium: Depositor Rights & RBI Intervention
Arguments
- Appellant claims clear violation of Rule 180 of the Army Rules due to insufficient opportunity to defend himself
- Appellant alleges being tormented with ulterior motives despite retirement after meritorious service
- Request for quashing of entire disciplinary proceedings citing victimization based on frivolous complaints even after retirement
- Respondent’s counsel presents original records of Court of Inquiry, refuting claims of concoction and manipulation
- Emphasis on one man inquiry being a preliminary investigation before Court of Inquiry was ordered
- Denial of violation of Rule 180 of the Army Rules as stated by the Tribunal
- Refutation of allegations of manipulation of records by the Respondents
- Appellant’s counsel argues initiation of disciplinary proceedings was influenced by extraneous considerations
- Full opportunity was given to the Appellant during the proceedings before the Court of Inquiry.
- The Appellant stoutly defended the judgment of the Tribunal.
- Non-interference with the judgment of the Tribunal was commended for consideration.
Also Read: State of Karnataka v. [Respondent]
Analysis
- The one man inquiry report was not furnished to the Appellant.
- The Appellant is entitled to an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses against him after examining the one man inquiry report.
- Without the report of the one man inquiry, the Appellant was disabled from effectively defending himself in the Court of Inquiry.
- The Tribunal directed that the Appellant should be provided with a copy of the one man inquiry report before continuing with the disciplinary proceedings against him.
- The basis for convening the Court of Inquiry is the one man inquiry report.
- Appellant raised issue of the one man inquiry report not being provided to him promptly.
- Directions from Tribunal for fresh disciplinary proceedings need modification.
- Court of Inquiry must be redone afresh.
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Entrance Exam Regulations in AYUSH Courses
Decision
- The Appeals have been disposed of due to the retirement of the Appellant.
- A Court of Inquiry is to be initiated and completed promptly against the Appellant.
- The Appellant has the right to cross-examine witnesses and present their own witnesses.
- The judgment of the Tribunal is affirmed with modifications mentioned.
- The Court of Inquiry against the Appellant shall be conducted again.
Case Title: BRIG L. I. SINGH YSM Vs. UNION OF INDIA
Case Number: C.A. No.-009223-009224 / 2019
