On 7th November 2022, the Supreme Court in a Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi observed that the power of judicial review is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not of the merits of the decision itself. (IC-56663X COL ANIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.)
Facts of the Case:
The appellant was commissioned as an officer in the Indian Army in 14 battalion of the Rajputana Rifles (Infantry) on 07.12.1996. On 13.08.2015, Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh, a close friend and colleague of the appellant wrote a letter to Brig. Ajav Vig which was a complaint against the appellant stating that appellant was sending indecent messages to the complainant’s wife, which were sexually explicit in nature and they both were in an illegitimate physical relationship also. Through this complaint the complainant requested to initiate suitable inquiry regarding the incident and take a disciplinary action against the officer. Moreover, he requested to initiate the process for posting the appellant out of Delhi. Consequent to this letter, a Court of Inquiry was conducted by the HQ Delhi Area to investigate.
A prima facie case was made out against the appellant and three charges were framed 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. Thereto, on 22.11.2018 the Convening Authority directed the trial by General Court Martial. An issue pertaining to the period of limitation in terms of Section 122 of the Army Act was raise by the appellant vide a letter addressed to the Convening Authority, where he was advised to raise the issue before he General Court Martial.
So, he filed an Original Application before the Tribunal under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, challenging the charge-sheet as well as the order which was dismissed giving rise to the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the appellant, while referring to section 122 of the Army Act, submitted that “the trial by Court Martial was vitiated being barred by the period of limitation prescribed under the said provision. Col. Ramneesh Singh knew about the commission of the alleged offence when he wrote the letter on 13.08.2015 and the Convening Authority had passed the order directing the trial by the General Court Martial on 22.11.2018 i.e., three years after the letter. 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. Moreover, the charged sheet under Section 45 of the Army Act, based on the said allegations against the appellant also needs to be quashed.”
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the respondents submitted that “from the letter by Col. Ramneesh Singh, it could not be construed that he had the knowledge about the commission of the alleged offence by the appellant. A prima facie case was made out against the appellant and hence the charge-sheet was issued and the Convening Authority had directed the trial by the General Court Martial. Since the department has initiated the departmental proceedings against the appellant, serious in nature, e Tribunal had rightly not interfered.”
Attention was drew on the letter by Lt. 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 misbehaviour 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.
Observations and Judgment of the Court:
The hon’ble court observed that “for the e purpose of Section 122, the two dates will be relevant i.e., the date when the alleged offence comes to the knowledge of the person aggrieved and the date on which the authority competent to initiate action comes to know about the alleged offence. The contents of the letter dated 13.08.2015 written by the aggrieved person i.e., Col. 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, this date whould be crucial because the aggrieved person had the knowledge about the commission of the alleged offence.
Therefore, the time had started running from the said date for the purpose of Section 122 of the said Act. We are therefore of the opinion that the trial by the General Court Martial directed vide the order dated 22.11.2018 was clearly barred under Section 122 of the Army Act. The power of Judicial review is s circumscribed by the limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. The power of judicial review is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not of the merits of the decision itself.”
The appeal is partially allowed. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant are continued in accordance with law.
Case: IC-56663X COL ANIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 8968 Of 2019
Bench: Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Date: November 07, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
