Union Of India And Anr. vs Ram Paul Singh Dahiya
1992 Latest Caselaw 502 Del

JUDGMENT

Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.

(1) On a complaint made by Capt. I.S. Dalal, a Staff Court of Inquiry was ordered against Lt. Col. V.R. Kochhar, the Commanding Officer, on 14th September, 1974. In the Staff Court of Inquiry, Capt. I.S. Dalal appeared as a witness and statement of Major Ram Paul Singh Dahiya was also recorded. In that very Inquiry, certain allegations of misconduct made against Major Bhagirath Singh, also came to the notice. In the Inquiry conducted against Lt. Col. V.R.Kochhar, the Commanding Officer, Lt. Col. V. R. Kochhar was administered "severe reprimand (to be recorded)".

(2) Inspite of indicting the Commanding Officer, proceedings were initiated against all the three other officers, named above.

(3) Against Major Bhagirath Singh, notice was issued under Section 19 read with Rule 14 of the Army Rules, 1954 and on a consideration of the reply, the Chief of Army Staff recommended to the Central Government for his removal from service and vide order dated 11th October, 1976, he was removed from service without holding any Court Martial or trial. He challenged that matter by filing a writ petition. No. 50 of 1977, in this Court. That writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge and the Union of India's Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed arid ultimately in Civil Appeal No. 1032 of 1987 decided on 20th October, '1989, this Court's orders were maintained by the apex court with the result that the order of removal from service stood set aside. His case was primarily decided on the basis that there was arbitrariness in not giving reasons for dispensing With the Court Martial or denying opportunity to the official to prove innocence. It was concluded that although the order need not mention the reasons, but it was their duty to provide reasons .to Court and none were provided to the Court.

(4) Against Capt. I.S. Dalal, General Court Martial was conducted and he was awarded forfeiture of four years' service for the purpose of promotion and severe reprimand.

(5) Then we come to the case of Major R.P.S. Dahiya, with whose case we are concerned in this appeal. Against him also. General urt Martial was held for making false statements in the Inquiry against the Commanding Officer, namely, Lt. Col. V.R. Kochhar. The General Court Martial ordered his dismissal. However, in post confirmation proceedings, the punishment was commuted under Section 164 of the Army Act to release from Army. This order was challenged by him in Civil Writ No.1347 of 1932. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and this Letters Patent Appeal is by the Union of India.

(6) On a deep consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the appeal has no merit.

(7) In the Staff Court of Inquiry, which was conducted against Lt.Col. V.R.Kochhar, the writ petitioner was required to state with respect to the following two questions:-

"Q.L:Were you asked by Lt.Col. V.R. Kochhar to buy a present for his brother Major V. Kochhar on the occasion of Major V. Kochhar's marriage in December 1973?

Q.2.4Were other officers consulted before the presentation was made to Major V.Kochhar in December 1973?"

THE reply of the writ petitioner to the aforesaid two questions are as follows:

"A.1:As I was officiating Commanding Officer for a fortnight during December 1973, lots of work for arrangements of celebrations was being made and all officers and few Junior Commissioned Officers along with some other Ranks were busy in carrying out preparations in the officers mess, at house, for his brother's marriage. He had mentioned that since all officers are being utilised, although we wish to keep the function very simple but a cocktail party will be thrown in the mess. Accordingly a drink party was given and cheap liquor was made use of. He had expressed his desire that since his brother is getting married in the station it will be appropriate to present some gift on behalf of officers and he too agreed to contribute towards the share.

A.2.4 No. None of the officers was consulted about this presentation before it was made. I along with Major Mr.Bhakar had purchased this present from the market on his desire and cost of the same was shared by all officers including Lt. Col. V.R.Kochhar. However, when the presentation was made all officers were present in the mess and share of this presentation was recovered in the mess bills.

(8) It may be mentioned that the cost of the tea set was about Rs.l60.00 , which was shared by the officers, including Lt.Col. V.R.Kochhar. In the Staff Court of Inquiry, the writ petitioner was examined and was asked questions relating to steel boxes made from corrugated iron p:'6 sheets, which belong to Army Stores as also regarding getting stitched Multi dress for the Jawans of the Company. On these two matters, the allegations against LLCol. V.R.Kochhar were that he converted the defense Army Stores corrugated irons sheets into steel boxes for his own use and for the marriage of his brother got Mufti dress made for the Jawans of the Company. The writ petitioner had replied that he had seen the corrugated sheets being brought down from defense stores at Nyukmadang to training base at Rupa on the directions of Lt. Col. V.R.Kochhar. Nyukmadang is at a height of about 7000 feet and Rupa is 3000 feet. As regards stiching of Mufti dresses, he stated that "B" Company of which he was the Commanding Officer, had got orders that every individual would have Mufti dress made from Bombay tailor, Mhow and the orders on this were passed verbally in a conference of all Company Commanders in May/June, 1973 and later on in Sainik Sammelan held by Major Bhagirath Singh and Lt. Col. V.R.Kochhar. The owner of the Bombay tailor came to the Unit with some tailors and took the measurements of available persons of the Company. The cost of terricoat shirt and pair of trousers was Rs.200.00 and the payment had to be made in the Installments of Rs.20.00 per month. There was some more statements made by the writ petitioner, which had been referred to in detail by the learned Single Judge and need not be reproduced here.

(9) The General Court Martial considered that the writ petitioner made untrue statements in the Inquiry conducted against Lt. Col.V.R.Kochhar and for making false and untrue statements he was proceeded against at the General Court Martial.

(10) On a consideration of the entire statements of the writ petitioner, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the statements appeared to be true. He also concluded that it cannot be said that he made false statements before the Staff Court of Inquiry.

(11) The learned Single Judge also came to the conclusion that it was not shown as to why the writ petitioner should make unnecessary allegations against Lt. Col. V.R.Kochhar.

(12) The statements made by the writ petitioner on three-four matters, which were being considered against Lt. Col. V.R.Kochhar by the Staff Court of Inquiry were put to the writ petitioner and he made statements to the extent he knew the factual position. Regarding corrugated iron sheets, he stated that he saw them when they were lying in the defense Stores at Nyukmadeng and were being brought down to Rupa. He also stated that he saw one long box made out of corrugated iron sheets in the Unit quarter guard for enlargements of maps and sketches and also saw two such boxes in the garage of Lt. Col. V.R.Kochhar. The writ petitioner was not concerned whether Lt.Col. V.R.Kochhar was guilty of misappropriating those boxes or not. He stated only, what he had seen. In the Staff Court of Inquiry, "severe displeasure" was recorded against Lt. Col. V.R. Kochhar and in spite of that proceedings were initiated by the General Court Martial against the writ petitioner for making false statements in that Inquiry. We are in complete agreement with the learned Single Judge that it cannot be attributed to the writ petitioner that he made false or untrue statements in the Staff Court of Inquiry.

(13) The course which seems to have been adopted by the authorities in this case would be rather destructive because in no Court of Inquiry a junior officer would come forward to make a statement. We are not holding that no Junior officer can make a false statement, but action should be taken only when the statement is proved to be so grossly false and not merely on a consideration it may be false or may not be false. For the reasons recorded, we find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

(14) However, we may mention that on the basis of interim orders passed by the Letters Patent Bench on 15th January, 1988, while staying the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge, it was ordered that the appellant would make payment of the 50 per cent of the pay and allowances to the writ petitioner as if he has been reinstated pursuant to the orders of the learned Single Judge. We are informed that the writ petitioner was paid his dues under the aforesaid orders even beyond 31st July, 1988 when he would have retired in the normal course as a Major and even beyond 31st July, 1989, when he would have retired had he been promoted to the post of Lt. Col.

(15) Accordingly, while making payments to the writ petitioner, pursuant to the orders of the learned Single Judge, the payments made under the interim orders passed by the Letters Patent Bench would be accounted for and adjusted.