No 32 of 2019 was preferred by the appellant before the Tribunal challenging the charge- sheet dated 19.11.2018 containing three charges pertaining to the appellant having behaved in a manner unbecoming his position and the character expected of him, under Section 45 of the Army Act, 1950, and challenging the order dated 22.11.2018 passed by Convening Authority directing the trial of the appellant by way of General Court Martial (GCM).
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/courts-analysis-on-compliance-with-resolution-plan-conditions/
Ajav Vig which is reproduced hereunder: “ CONFIDENTIAL Colonel Ramneesh Pal Singh 14 Battalion The Rajputana Rifles Commanding Officer PIN-912014 C/o 56 APO RPS156206/Pers 13,Aug 15
Brig Ajav Vig Cdr 79Mtn Bde Pin-908079 C/o 56
APO COMPLAINT IN R/O IC 56663
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/recall-of-order-and-legal-analysis-on-resolution-plan-requirements/
COL ANIL K GUPTA 1.
On the completion of Summary of Evidence, a prima facie case was made out against the Appellant and accordingly, three charges were framed against the appellant with regard to he having behaved in the manner unbecoming his position and character expected of him, under Section 45 of the Army Act vide the charge-sheet dated 19.11.2018. The appellant, thereafter on 07.01.2019, filed an Original Application being no.32/2019 before the Tribunal under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, challenging the charge-sheet dated 19.11.2018 as well as the order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the Convening Authority directing trial of the appellant by General Court Martial. Hence the period of three years having already expired as contemplated in Section 122 of the Army Act, the Tribunal had committed an error in not quashing the order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the Convening Authority and consequently the trial proceedings. General, Adjutant General’s Branch, Army Headquarters DHQ PO, New Delhi containing the policy dealing with disciplinary aspect of matrimonial affairs of officers, which mentioned as to what constituted the alleged misbehavior amounting to adultery, to submit that it was only after conducting a court inquiry, it could be concluded that an alleged offence of stealing the affection of the officer’s wife has been committed by the officer or not, and in the instant case, the said offence was prima facie made out only after the completion of Summary of Evidence. Period of Limitation for trial –
(1) Except as provided by sub-section (2), no trial by court-martial of any person subject to this Act for any offence shall be commenced after the expiration of a period of three years and such period shall commence- ( a ) on the date of the offence or, ( b ) where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the authority competent to initiate action, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or authority, whichever is earlier or ( c ) where it is not known by whom the offence was committed, the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the authority competent to initiate action, whichever is earlier…” 8. From the bare reading of the said provision, it clearly transpires that no trial by Court Martial of any person subject to the Army Act, for any offence could be commenced after the expiration of a period of three years, and such period would commence on the date of offence or where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the authority competent to initiate action, the first day on which such offence comes to knowledge of such person or authority, whichever is earlier.
Ramneesh Singh to the concerned authority, it clearly transpires that he was aware of the alleged act of the appellant having stolen the affection of his wife on the date of the said letter. Therefore, the date 13.08.2015 would be the crucial date on which the aggrieved person had the knowledge about the 8 commission of the alleged offence. However, we hasten to add that as per the well settled legal position, the power of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceedings is extremely limited. It is therefore clarified that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant pursuant to the chargesheet issued on 19.11.2018 shall continue in accordance with law. TRIVEDI]
Case Title: IC 56663X COL ANIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (2022 INSC 1182)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008968 / 2019
