http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4022 of 1998

PETITIONER: GEN.OFFICER COMM. IN CHIEF,LUCKNOW & ORS    

RESPONDENT: R.P. SHUKLA (DEAD)BY LRS.& ORS                     

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/05/2006

BENCH: Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O  R  D  E  R                  The present Civil Appeal is directed against the judgment and order  dt.04.01.1996 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Misc.Petition  No.2611 of 1992.         We have heard Mr.A.Sharan, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the appellants.         The first respondent died during the pendency of this appeal in this Court.   Though his Lrs. were impleaded vide Courts Order dt.20.04.2006 in I.A.No.2, there is no  response on their behalf.  Notice has also been served on respondent Nos.1(i), 1(ii), 2 and  3.  In spite of service, none appears for the said respondents.         The respondents were found guilty by the Officer Commanding, Troops, C.O.D.,  Jabalpur by order dt.18.04.1992.  They were sentenced to undergo RI for one year and  dismissal from service.  This was in respect of respondent No.1.  Respondent Nos.2 and 3  were sentenced to undergo RI for six months each and also suffered dismissal from  service.  All the three respondents approached the High Court on 05.08.1992 by way of  Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India being Miscellaneous  Petition No.2611 of 1992 with a grievance that the appellant had not decided the appeal till   the date of filing of the Writ Petition.  However, during the pendency of the Writ Petition,   the appeal filed by the respondents was rejected by the appellant No.1 herein.  The  appellants challenged the legality and validity of the proceedings of the Summary Court  Martial and award of the punishment by the Summary Court Martial on various grounds.   The appellants contested the said Writ Petition by filing a detailed affidavit.           The High Court vide its judgment dt.04.01.1996 allowed the Writ Petition on the  sole ground of non-observance of Army Rule 180 and accordingly set aside the entire  proceedings of Summary Court Martial including charge sheet dt.09.04.1992 and also set  aside the punishment awarded to the respondents therein with a further direction that they  will be entitled to be reinstated in the services.  Being aggrieved by the above judgment,  the appellant has preferred the present appeal in this Court.         We have perused the judgment passed by the High Court and also the grounds of  SLP and the other annexures filed along with the Writ Petition and in this appeal. We have  also heard the learned ASG appearing on behalf of the appellants herein.  Since the High  Court has disposed of the Writ Petition on the ground that Army Rule 180 has not been  strictly observed, we directed the learned ASG to place before us the entire original  records of the inquiry and other allied proceedings in order to satisfy ourselves as to  whether Army Rule 180 has been adhered to or not.  The entire records have been placed  before us and we have perused the same.  A perusal of the entire records would clearly  show that the Court of Inquiry has strictly observed and complied with the Army Rule 180.   The finding of the High Court, therefore, that Army Rule 180 has not been observed is  factually not correct and we, therefore, have no option but to set aside the judgment of the   High Court and affirm the order passed by the Officer Commanding, Troops, C.O.D.,  Jabalpur.         We have also perused the charges of misconduct alleged against the respondents  herein.  The charges are very serious and grave in nature.  In view of the seriousness of th e  charges, we are of the opinion that the punishment awarded to the respondents are not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

disproportionate or  excessive  in  nature to shock the conscience of this Court.  We,  therefore,affirm the order passed by the  Officer Commanding, Troops, C.O.D., Jabalpur  imposing punishment of RI and dismissal of all the three respondents from service which  they deserve in the facts and circumstances of the case.          It is also seen from the application filed by the appellants for fixing an early dat e  of hearing of the appeal,  certain particulars with regard to the tenure of service of the  respondents have also been furnished in the said application which are as under :-

"Army No.  Rank         Date of         Date of     Date of  and Name                        enrollment      dismissal   completion                         in DSC                      of terms of                                                     engagement                                                     if not                                                     dismissed

7086847  ES/HAV         11 Jul.83       18 Apr 92    21 Jul 93 R.P.Shukla

10243832 Ex-Sep          7 Jul 84       18 Apr 92     6 Jul 94  Pati Ram Balmiki         

13843278 Ex-Sep         26 Jul 90       18 Apr 92    25 Jul 95"  Mohan Lal

       It is submitted that the existing terms of all the respondents have already  expired much before the order of reinstatement was passed by the High Court of Madhya  Pradesh vide its judgment dt.04.01.1996.  Since the terms of the engagement of all the  three respondents have already expired, they cannot also be reinstated in service.  It is  stated that the respondents were employed in service on short term basis, their terms of  employment expired way back on 25 Sept.1995 and the High Court Judgment came in  4th January, 1996.  On this ground also, the respondents have no case.           For all the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the judgment of the High Court  which is impugned in this appeal.  In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants stands  allowed.  However, there shall be no order as to costs.         As already noticed, the High Court has disposed of the matter only on the  ground of non-observance of Army Rule 180.  At the time of hearing before us, the  entire records were placed before us and we have perused the same.  Therefore, we  decided to consider the entire matter on merits and accordingly allowed the present  appeal as above.