Delhi High Court
Lt. Col. Pramod Kumar Katial vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 January, 2006
Author: M Mudgal
Bench: M Mudgal, H Malhotra
JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. The petitioner was serving in the Army in the rank of Lt. Colonel. On 19th February, 1999, the Court of Inquiry was convened in respect of the following charge:
New Delhi between 15th March, 1999 and 18th March, 1999 while performing the duties of officiating Director (Signals -4) Directorate General of Signals, Army HQ indirectly attempted to obtain a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only, a gratification as a motive for procuring the posting of No. 14249969 X Hav Jose PV of Signals Intelligence Directorate, Army HQ to IMTRAT Signals Company, Bhutan, by demanding the said sum from the said Hav Jose PV through No. 14248973 N Hav now Sigmn Ishwar Singh (Retd) of 1 Army HQ Signal Regt
3. By the order dated 22nd October, 2001 in the original Court Martial, the petitioner was found guilty and sentenced with forfeiture of eight years of past service for the purpose of increased pay and pension. This order was challenged in revision and the revisional authority by its order dated 15th May, 2002 held that the sentence awarded was lenient and was not commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Accordingly, the sentence was found to be illegal and untenable. However, on merits of the findings there was no interference. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the Court Martial to consider the quantum of sentence in the light of the observation in the revisional order. Subsequent to the order in revision by the order of the Court Martial dated 27th May, 2002, the petitioner was sentenced with the following punishments :-
a) to take rank and and precedence as if his appointment of Lieutenant Colonel bore date the twenty second day of Oct 2001.
b) to forfeit nine years of past service for the purpose of pension.
c) to be severely reprimanded.
4. The petitioner sought to challenge the said revision order dated 15th May, 2002 and the consequent order dated 27th May, 2002, by contending that there was no application of mind by stating that there has been certain wrong recordings of the number of court martial, the charge mentioned in the revision order was wrong, the date of assembling of Court Martial was wrong. His principal plea was that when originally the charge against the petitioner was attempting to obtain a sum of Rs.10,000/-, as a gratification as a motive of procuring the advantage in the service, the revision order erroneously mentions that he actually obtained a sum of Rs.10,000/- as gratification. The petitioner was asked whether mere mentioning of obtained as opposed to the attempting to obtain results in any difference in the quantum of sentence awardable and he was unable to point out the same.
5. Having gone through the order of revision dated 15th May, 2002, we are of the view the mistakes in the order of revision are clerical in nature and do not have any substantial bearing on the merits and the result, particularly when punishments for both attempting to obtain and obtaining qualification are the same under Section 64(e) of the Army Act, which reads as follows:-
64. Miscellaneous offences.-- Any person subject to this Act who commits any of the following offences, that is to say,--
...
(e) directly or indirectly accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for himself or for any other person, any gratification as a motive or reward for procuring the enrolment of any person, or leave of absence, promotion or any other advantage or indulgence for any person in the service; or
...
6. Accordingly, while there are certain clerical errors in the revision order, we are of the view that has not affected the merits of the issue involved in this writ petition and the petitioner is not entitled to avail of the discretionary exercise remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Considering the serious nature of the charge the punishment commensurates with the gravity of the charge established against the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
