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

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil) 5802  of  1998

PETITIONER: U.O.I. & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K.SUBRAMANIAM EX. J.C.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/04/2001

BENCH: CJI, R.C. Lahoti & Brijesh Kumar

JUDGMENT:

R.C. Lahoti, J. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   Respondent,  K.  Subramanian was havildar in the rank of non- commissioned officers.  During 1985, a court of inquiry was  held for enquiring into certain irregularities relating to  distribution of ration and accounting during the  period 1981-1984.   The name of the respondent also figured in  the inquiry.   Mainly  it was the lack of supervision  that  was attributed to the respondent.  However, those who were found guilty  were proceeded against by holding court martial.  No such  action  was initiated against the  respondent.   Other persons  were  punished in accordance with the  finding  and sentence  pronounced  by the court martial and confirmed  by the  competent authority.  On 26th July, 1988 the respondent was served with a notice under Section 20(1) of the Army Act read  with  Rule 17 of the Army Rules requiring him to  show cause  why  his  services  should not  be  terminated.   The respondent  gave a reply.  On 4.4.1989 he was ordered to  be dismissed from service.

   Putting  in issue the order of dismissal, the respondent filed  a  writ petition before the High Court  of  Karnataka which  was  heard by a learned single Judge who  vide  order dated  5.12.1989  directed  the  order of  dismissal  to  be quashed   mainly  on  the   ground  of  non-compliance  with principles of natural justice.  In between on 13th November, 1987  the  respondent  had been directed to be  promoted  as subedar  which order was, however, not given effect to.  The Union  of India preferred a writ appeal against the order of learned single Judge.  The writ appeal was partly allowed on 5.12.1989  permitting a further enquiry being held.  In  its judgment  dated 5.12.1989 the Division Bench observed  inter alia   that  though  the   disciplinary  authority  was  not precluded  from  holding a further enquiry but it seemed  to the  court that regard being had to the facts of this  case indicating  that the petitioner had not much to do with  the disappearance  of  the  stock of food  from  the  government stores  in  relation  to  which an  investigation  had  been conducted  by  the Court of Inquiry the authority  may  well consider  whether  it is just and proper at all  to  proceed

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

with a further inquiry.

   However, a further inquiry was held.  The members of the previous  Court  of Inquiry were not available and  hence  a fresh  Court of Inquiry was constituted.  The respondent was once again issued a notice to show cause against termination and  vide order dated 29.10.1991 he was once again  directed to  be dismissed from service.  The respondent filed a  writ petition  which  was allowed by learned single Judge of  the high  court who has directed the impugned order of dismissal from  service  to  be quashed.  A writ appeal  preferred  by Union of India has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the high  court  on 18.6.1997 which is sought to be impugned  by filing this petition for special leave.

   We  have  heard  learned Additional  Solicitor  General. Looking  to  the nature of the allegations made against  the respondent,  who belonged to junior echelon of service  (was not  an officer), the successive Courts of Inquiry, the fact that  in  respect  of the same incident  some  persons  were subjected  to court martial proceedings while the respondent has  been proceeded against under Section 20(1) of the  Army Act  read with Rule 17 of the Army Rules, the long lapse  of time in between and the fact that the respondent was also in the meanwhile ordered to be promoted, we are of the opinion, keeping  in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of  the case, that the present one is not a fit case for the exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of  the  Constitution of India so as to interfere  with  the impugned order of the High Court.

   Leave  to appeal is refused.  The special leave petition is dismissed.