GEN. OFFICER COMM. IN CHIEF, LUCKNOW AND ORS.versusR.P. SHUKLA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

         GEN. OFFICER COMM. IN CHIEF, LUCKNOW AND ORS.                            A
                                        v.
                  R.P. SHUKLA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

                                 MAY 22, 2006

     [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]
                                                                                  B

         Service Law:

          Armed Forces-Sepoyes and Havildar employed on short-term basis-
    Misconduct-Summary Court Martial-R.I. for one year/six months-                C
    Dismissal from service-High Court setting aside entire proceedings for
    non-observance of r.180 of Army Rules and directing reinstatement-Held,
    finding of High Court that r.180 was not observed is factually not correct-
     On merits, charges against delinquents being serious and grave in nature,
    punishments awarded are not disproportionate or excessive in nature to        D
     shock conscience of the Court-Terms of their engagement having already
     expired, they could not be reinstated in service-Order passed by Officer
    Commanding, Troops, C.O.D. affirmed-Army Rules-r.180.

         CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4022 of
    1998. ·                                                                       E
        From the Judgment and Order dated 4.1.1996 of the High Court of
    Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Petition No. 2611/1992.

         A. Saran, ASG, S. Wasim A. Qadri and Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advs., with
    him for the Appellants.                                                       F
         The Order of the Court was delivered :

                                     ORDER

          The present Civil Appeal is directed against the judgment and order     G
    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.
                                                                                  H
                                        859



•
    860                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A        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
    l.A.No.2, there is no response on their behalf. Notice has also been served
    on respondent Nos. l(i), l(ii), 2 and 3. In spite of service, none appears for
    the said respondents.

B         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. I. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo RI
    for six months each and also suffered dismissal from service. All the three
c   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. I herein. The appellants
D
    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.

E         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
F   entitled to be reinstated in the services. Being aggrieved by the above
    judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal in this Court.

          We haye 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
G   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 l 80 has been adhered to or not. The entire records
H   have been placed before us and we have perused the same. A perusal of
       GEN. OFFICER COMM. IN CHIEF, LUCKNOW v. R.P. SHUKLA                 861

the entire records would clearly show that the Court of Inquiry has strictly       A
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.
                                                                                   B
      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 the charges, we are of the opinion that the punishment
awarded to the respondents are not disproportionate or excessive in nature
to shock the conscience of this Court. We, therefore, affirm the order passed      C
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      D
an early date 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 completion
and Name                 enrollment      dismissal        of terms of              E
                         in DSC                           engagement if
                                                          not dismissed

7086847 ES/HAV            I I Jul 83     18 Apr 92        21 Jul 93
R.P.Shukla
                                                                                   F
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                                                                          G

     It is submitted that the existing terms of all the respondents have already
expired much before the order ofreinstatement 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          H
    862                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   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
B   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
C   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.

    R.P.                                                        Appeal allowed.