Delhi High Court
M S Manju Natha Naik vs Union Of India Through The ... on 22 November, 2017
$~36.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 385/2013
M S MANJU NATHA NAIK ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate with
Mr. H.S. Tiwari, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with
Mr. Kushal Kumar, Advocate and Mr. M.I.
Agrawal, JD, Legal, BRO in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 22.11.2017
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia
for issuance of a writ of certiorari, for quashing the investigation conducted
against him by the respondents, including the Court of Inquiry proceedings
that have resulted in initiation of disciplinary action against him and
issuance of the attachment order dated 08.01.2013.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Court of Inquiry, wherein
material was gathered and the statements of witnesses recorded, did not
comply with the provisions of Rule 180 of the Army Rules inasmuch as the
presence of the petitioner was not ensured at several stages. It is also
contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was only
afforded an opportunity to cross-examine 5 witnesses out of 22 witnesses
cited by the respondents, who had previously deposed during the
proceedings and their depositions were also not furnished to the petitioner. It
is thus stated that the rights vested in the petitioner under Rule 180 of the
Army Rules have been infringed by the respondents and the said Rule being
mandatory in nature, the entire proceedings conducted by the respondent,
stand vitiated.
3. We may note that vide order dated 29.01.2013, passed in the present
petition, the respondents were directed not to record any further
proceedings, comply with the provisions of Rule 184 of the Army Rules and
furnish a copy of the Court of Inquiry proceedings including the statements
recorded, to the petitioner.
4. Ms. Arora, learned counsel for the respondents states on instructions
that copies of the Court of Inquiry proceedings including the statements
recorded, have already been furnished to the counsel for the petitioner,
which position is duly confirmed by Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the
petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents further clarifies on
instructions that the respondents propose to initiate proceedings against the
petitioner under the CCS(CCA) Rules and not under the Army Rules, by
recording summary of evidence, general court martial etc. She submits that
steps shall be taken expeditiously to issue a charge-sheet against the
petitioner for misconduct and when that happens, the petitioner shall be
entitled to take all the pleas that may be available to him in law. In support
of this submission, learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court dated 04.11.2016, in W.P.(C) 7123/2016
entitled "Padam Kumar vs. UOI and Ors."
5. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in that event,
the respondents cannot be permitted to rely on the evidence recorded during
the Court of Inquiry and if they do so, the petitioner reserves his right to
question the same, in accordance with law.
6. While recording the statement of the learned counsel for the
respondents that the respondents propose to issue a charge-sheet against the
petitioner for misconduct under the CCS(CCA) Rules and no further steps
shall be taken against him under the Army Rules, the present petition is
disposed of with liberty granted to the respondents to initiate appropriate
action against the petitioner under the CCS(CCA) Rules. In those
proceedings, the petitioner shall be entitled to take all the pleas in his
defence as may be available to him, both on facts and in law.
7. The petition is disposed of. No orders as to costs.
HIMA KOHLI, J
REKHA PALLI, J
NOVEMBER 22, 2017
rkb/na
