UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusEX. NO.6492086A SEP/ASH KULBEER SINGH

                          [2019] 4 S.C.R. 1099                           1099


                     UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                               A
                                  v.
         EX. NO.6492086A SEP/ASH KULBEER SINGH
                   (Civil Appeal No.3095 of 2017)
                         MARCH 11, 2019                                  B
         [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                 HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
       Army Act, 1950 – s.106 – Inquiry into absence without leave
– Respondent-sepoy in the Indian Army failed to report to his new
                                                                         C
unit – He was declared to be a deserter – However, respondent
reported after a lapse of 302 days – He was tried by a Summary
Court Martial – Respondent pleaded guilty and he was dismissed
from service – However, Armed Forces Tribunal came to conclusion
that the finding arrived at by the Summary Court Martial was correct,
but the sentence of dismissal was disproportionate – On appeal,          D
held: On perusal of record it is evident that the respondent did not
make any effort to apply for extension of his leave – Absence of
302 days from his duty by a member of the Armed Force was not
condonable – Tribunal was in error in coming to the conclusion
that the punishment which was imposed was harsh – The only basis
                                                                         E
for finding was that the respondent had put in twelve years of service
– However, this was all more a reason why any responsible member
of the Armed Forces should not have absented himself from service
without permission – Judgment and order of the Armed Forces
Tribunal set aside.
                                                                         F
      The respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army as a Sepoy
in the Army Service Corps. Having failed to report to his new
Unit, he was declared as absent without leave. However, after a
lapse of 302 days, the respondent reported to the ASC Centre
(North) at Gaya. Thereafter, he was tried by a Summary Court
Martial, wherein respondent pleaded guilty. The Summary Court            G
Martial found the respondent guilty and sentenced him to
dismissal from service. The respondent challenged his conviction
and dismissal from service before the Armed Forces Tribunal.
The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the finding arrived at
by the Summary Court Martial was correct, but that the sentence
                                                                         H
                                1099
1100            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 4 S.C.R.


 A     of dismissal was disproportionate. Hence, present Special Leave
       Petition.
             Allowing the appeal, the Court
              HELD: It is evident from the statement of the respondent,
       that he had admitted his absence for 302 days without leave. The
 B     statement contains a justification for the absence. From the
       record, it is evident that the respondent did not make any effort
       to apply for extension of his leave. Absence of 302 days from his
       duty by a member of the Armed Force could not be condoned.
       This Court is clearly of the view that the Armed Forces Tribunal
 C     was in error in coming to the conclusion that the punishment
       which was imposed was harsh. The only basis for the finding was
       that the respondent had put in twelve years of service. This was
       all the more a reason why any responsible member of the Armed
       Force should not have absented from service without permission.
       The Tribunal clearly misdirected itself in law in coming to the
 D     conclusion that the punishment of dismissal from service was
       harsh and disproportionate. [Paras 10 and 11] [1103-E-H]
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3095
       of 2017

 E           From the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2015 of the Armed
       Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow in O.A. No. 483 of 2012 /
       Order dated 06.01.2016 in M.A. No. 2351 of 2015 in O.A. No. 483 of
       2012
             Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Shailender Saini,
 F     A.K. Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs. for the Appellants.
            Ms. Anindita Pujari, Ms. Aarti Krupa Kumar, Advs. for the
       Respondent.
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
 G
             1. Admitted.
             2. The respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army as a Sepoy in
       the Army Service Corps on 25 April 1996. On 11 November 2007, he

 H
     UNION OF INDIA v. EX. NO.6492086A SEP/ASH  1101
KULBEER SINGH [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

was dispatched on a permanent posting to 874 ASC Batallion, which           A
was deployed in Jammu and Kashmir. Having failed to report to his
new Unit on 21 November 2007, he was declared as absent without
leave on 22 November 2007. In terms of Section 106 of the Army Act
1950, a Court of Inquiry was held and the respondent was declared to
be a deserter with effect from 22 November 2007. On 18 September
                                                                            B
2008, after a lapse of 302 days, the respondent reported to the ASC
Centre (North) at Gaya.
       3. On 12 November 2008, he was tried by a Summary Court
Martial on two counts: the first count was his unauthorized absence
over a period of 302 days without leave; while the second count related
to the loss of certain equipment and clothing. The respondent pleaded       C
guilty to the two charges. In his statement before the Summary Court
Martial, the respondent stated thus:
      “14. I No 6492086-A Sep/ASH Kulbeer Singh of 874 AT Bn ASC
      att with HQ Wing, ASC Centre (North) was enrolled in the Army
      on 25 Apr 1996. I belong to Vill – Sampla Begampur, PO –              D
      Sarsawa, PS – Nakur, Teh – Nakur, Distt – Saharanpur, State –
      UP. My family consists of my father aged 55 yrs, mother aged 52
      yrs, wife aged 29 yrs and son aged 3 yrs.
      15. I was posted to 874 AT Bn ASC from 514 ASC Bn during
      Nov 2007. During my preparatory leave I went to my house. On          E
      reaching home, I cam to know that my uncle had taken possession
      of my old house. The matter was reported to Village Sarpanch &
      Tehsildar. Tehsildar investigated the matter & the house was
      recovered from my uncle and handed over to my father.
      Thereafter I reported at HQ Wing on 18 Sep 2008 afternoon after       F
      being absent for 302 days.
      16. I was found to be deficient of clothing and equipment items
      for Rs.2265/- (Rupees two thousand two hundred sixty five only)
      as mentioned in the kit deficiency list att as Appx to IAFD-918
      (Annexure – II produced by Prosecution Witness No.2).                 G
      17. The above statement has been read over to me in the language
      (Hindi). I understand better and sign it as correct in the presence
      of independent witness.”

                                                                            H
1102              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 4 S.C.R.


 A           4. The Summary Court Martial found the respondent guilty and
       sentenced him to dismissal from service.
              5. The respondent submitted a petition under Section 164 of the
       Army Act on 17 May 2010, which was rejected by the GOC, Madhya
       Pradesh Area on 13 April 2011. The respondent challenged his conviction
 B     and dismissal from service before the Armed Forces Tribunal at its
       Regional Bench in Lucknow. By an order dated 21 August 2015, the
       Tribunal came to the conclusion that the finding arrived at by the Summary
       Court Martial was correct, but that the sentence of dismissal was
       disproportionate. The Tribunal noted that in his twelve years of service,
       the respondent had been punished in 2007 for having overstayed his
 C     leave by 140 days and this was his second infraction. In the view of the
       Tribunal, the punishment could have been modulated so as to allow the
       respondent to continue to serve the Army until he qualified for pension.
       The Tribunal found that the punishment which was awarded to the
       respondent was disproportionate having regard to his service of twelve
 D     years and, accordingly, issued the following directions:
             “20. Accordingly, the O.A. is only partly allowed. While affirming
             the Summary Court Martial proceedings and the Attachment Order
             to be a valid, we direct that the punishment of dismissal be hereby
             quashed. The petitioner will be deemed to be notionally in service
 E           w.e.f. 12.11.2008 till he attains the service which entitles him to
             receive pension and thereafter he shall be granted pension with
             all consequential benefits. We clarify that the petitioner shall not
             be paid salary during the period of notional service. No order as
             to costs.”

 F               6. Assailing the aforesaid directions, the Union of India is in
       appeal.
             7. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General along
       with Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned counsel appearing for the appellants,
       submitted that the respondent had duly admitted the charge of misconduct.
 G     The Tribunal specifically found no reason to interfere with the finding of
       the Summary Court Martial. Once this was duly established, there was
       no justification for the Tribunal to hold that the punishment was
       disproportionate, considering the fact that there was an unauthorized
       absence of 302 days by a member of the Armed Force.

 H
     UNION OF INDIA v. EX. NO.6492086A SEP/ASH  1103
KULBEER SINGH [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

       8. Two submissions were urged on behalf of the respondent.            A
Firstly, it was submitted that Section 39 of the Army Act, 1950 provides
that on conviction by a Court Martial, a person who has committed an
offence inter alia of overstaying the leave granted shall be liable to
suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or such
lesser punishment as may be mentioned in the Act. In the present case,
                                                                             B
it was, hence, urged that instead of subjecting the respondent to a term
of imprisonment under Section 39, he was dismissed from service.
Secondly, it was submitted that if the statement of the respondent is duly
construed, it would be incorrect to hold that he had admitted the charge
of misconduct.
                                                                             C
        9. We do not find any merit in the first submission. Section 39 of
the Army Act, 1950 is comprised in Chapter VI which deals with
“Offences”. Section 39 provides that on a conviction by Court Martial
for an offence involving absence without leave, a sentence of
imprisonment which may extend up to three years may be imposed.
Chapter VII which deals with “Punishments” contains Section 71. Clause       D
(e) of Section 71 specifically contemplates the punishment of dismissal
from service on conviction by Court Martials. Hence, we find no merit
in the first submission.
       10. Insofar as the second submission is concerned, it is evident
from the statement, which was extracted earlier, that the respondent         E
had admitted his absence for 302 days without leave. The statement
contains a justification for the absence. From the record, it is evident
that the respondent did not make any effort to apply for extension of his
leave. Absence of 302 days from his duty by a member of the Armed
Force could not be condoned. We are clearly of the view that the Armed       F
Forces Tribunal was in error in coming to the conclusion that the
punishment which was imposed was harsh. The only basis for the finding
was that the respondent had put in twelve years of service. This was all
the more a reason why any responsible member of the Armed Force
should not have absented from service without permission.
                                                                             G
      11. The Tribunal clearly misdirected itself in law in coming to the
conclusion that the punishment of dismissal from service was harsh and
disproportionate.


                                                                             H
1104                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2019] 4 S.C.R.


 A           12. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
       judgment and order of the Armed Forces Tribunal dated 21 August 2015.
       In consequence, OA 483 of 2012 filed by the respondent shall stand
       dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.


 B     Ankit Gyan                                              Appeal allowed.




 C




 D




 E




 F




 G




 H