Holding

A commanding officer in a summary court‑martial must consider the Court of Enquiry’s recommendation and give reasons if it is not accepted; failure to do so renders the punishment arbitrary and unsustainable, warranting the appellant’s discharge and entitlement to benefits.

Summary

Sheel Kumar Roy, an Army serviceman who suffered from psychiatric illness, was repeatedly admitted to military hospitals and was on medical leave from July 1990 to July 1991. A Court of Enquiry under Army Rule 22 recommended that his period of absence be regularised as medical leave, but the commanding officer ignored this recommendation and, acting as both prosecutor and judge, conducted a summary court‑martial on 7 September 1991, convicting him of absence without leave under s.39(a) of the Army Act and sentencing him to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service. The dismissal was upheld on appeal to the Chief of Staff, and the appellant’s writ petition was dismissed by the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court held that the commanding officer was obliged to consider the Court of Enquiry’s recommendation and to give reasons if it was rejected; the failure to do so made the punishment arbitrary and violative of Article 14. Consequently, the Court directed that the appellant be deemed discharged as of 7 September 1991 and be entitled to all post‑service benefits.

Issues considered

The extent to which a Court of Enquiry's recommendation must be considered by a commanding officer in a summary court‑martial.
Whether imposing both rigorous imprisonment and dismissal for the offence of absence without leave under s.39(a) and s.71 of the Army Act is permissible and proportionate.
Whether the summary court‑martial complied with procedural fairness, given the commanding officer acted as both prosecutor and judge and the appellant suffered from mental illness.
Whether the punishment violated the constitutional guarantee of equality before law (Article 14) and the doctrine of proportionality.

Legislation cited

Army Act, 1950s. 116, s. 39(a), s. 3(a), s. 71
Army Rules, 1954s. Rule 22

Subjects

Army Actsummary court martialCourt of Enquiryabsence without leavemental illnessproportionalityArticle 14dismissalrigorous imprisonmentmilitary lawprocedural fairness

Judgment

- -l
SHEELKRROY
v.
SECRETARY MIO DEFENCE AND ORS.
A

MAY 18, 2007

[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B

, Army Act, 1950:

s.3(a)-Absence from duty-Recommendation of Court of Enquiry that
absence period to be regularized as during period of absence he was admitted c
in Hospital-Order of dismissal and 6 years rigorous imprisonment passed
without considering the recommendation-Challenge against-Held, opinion
of court of enquiry is only recommendary in nature but the commanding
officer in a proceeding for summary court martial was required to take that
into consideration-They ought to have explained as to why recommendations D
of court of enquiry were not accepted-Once it has come on record that the
_, appellant had not been absconding but was admitted in hospital, matters
..... deserved deeper scrutiny by competent authority-Imposition of both
punishment of rigorous imprisonment for six years as also dismissal ji-om
service was wholly arbitrary-In view of peculiar facts and circumstances,
interest ofjustice would be met if it is directed that he should be deemed to E
have been discharged-He would, thus, be entitled to all benefits arising
therefrom-Army Rules, 1954-r.22.

. Appellant joined the Army Service on or about 18.8.1981. While posted
at Leh, owing to high altitude of the place, he developed psychiatric problems.
For want of necessary care, he became a psychiatry patient He had to undergo F
1,. treatments in the various Army Hospitals situated. In the Medical Board
proceedings held on 22.4.1987, the appellant was put in medical category
'CEE'.

The medical re-categorization which was to take place on or about
G
21.10.1987 was delayed. He continued to be on medical leave and was
categorized to be in CEE category for six months. Thereafter he went on leave
as a part of annual leave, but he allegedly overstaye<! for about 96 days. Some
,. ·-~
punishment was imposed on him by an order dated 5.12.89. He prior to joining
his present posting, was posted in another unit on 20.1.1990. He was allegedly'
475 H
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A found fit to join his duties. He was admitted to Medical Hospital, Ambala from
13.5.1990 to 7.6.1990 for medical recategorisation. He was granted casual
leave for the period of7.6.1990 to 18.6.1990 to visit his family, but he allegedly
overstayed his leave again for 20 days, even though there is nothing to .show
as to whether he had been declared fit for joining his duties or not. There is
B al.,o nothing on record to show that any action was taken against him in respect
thereof but admittedly he was admitted to Medical Hospita~ Ambala for medical
re-categorization. He was transferred to Command Hospital on 16.7.1990.

For his purported absence for the period from 16.7.1990 to 22.7.1991,
a chargesheet was submitted. He had again been sent to Command Hospital
C for medical re-categorization. Having been found fit, he was allegedly
discharged from the Hospital on 12.8.1991 upon upgrading to Medical
Category 'A YE'. He was summarily tried for another misconduct and was
awarded 7 days Rigorous Imprisonment and 7 days Pay fine.

A Court of Enquiry was held in terms of Rule 22 of the Army Rules,
D 1954 on 3.9.1991 in regard to the alleged overstay from 16.07.1990. Court
of Enquiry observed that the absence period to be regularized administratively
as he was admitted in the hospital. Despite the recommendations of the Court
of Enquiry, he while undergoing punishment of7 days' Rigorous Imprisonment
by the order dated 30.8.1991, the charge-sheet in question being dated
3.9.1991 was issued to the appellant by the Commanding Officer of his unit.
E He was tried in a Summary Court Martial proceeding held on 7.9.1991 only
for an hour. The Commanding Officer himself was the Prosecutor and also
the Judge. He was held guilty and sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous
imprisonment and was also the punishment of dismissal from service. On
appeal, the Chief of Staff, however, by order dated 5.10.1991 remitted three
F months' Rigorous Imprisonment maintaining the sentence of dismissal. He
made representations before-the higher authorities. The Writ Petition filed
by the appellant, was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

G HELD: 1.1. From the records produced by the respondents, it is evident
that the appellant had remained in one or the other Army Medical Hospitals
from 8.7.1990. Although he is said to have absented himself on and from
10.7.1990, it now transpires that he had been admitted at the Command
Hospital, Ambala Cantt from 11.7.1990. This discrepancy has not been
explained. The Court of Enquiry in the aforementioned situation must be
H
... _(
SHEELKR.ROYv. SECRETARYM/ODEFENCE .• 477

presumed to have made recommendations for regularization of his leave upon A
consideration of the relevant records and particularly the movement orders.
It is true that the opinion of the Court of Enquiry is only recommendary in
nature but it is also true that the Commanding Officer in a proceeding for
Summary CourtMartial was required to take that fact into consideration. It
is one thing to say that the recommendations of the Court of Enquiry had not
been accepted but then if such recommendations had been made having regard B
1 to the materials which were brought on the records by the respondents
1,,-
themselves, it was obligatory on his part to assign some reasons in support
thereof. It is evident that the premise on which such recommendation has been
made by the Court of Enquiry was not taken into consideration in the Summary
Court Martial proceeding. [Para 14 and 15) (484-C, D, E, F) c
1.2. In any event, the respondents themselves should have explained in
their counter-affidavit as to why the recommendations of the Court of Enquiry
were not accepted. Once it is held that for the period of the purported absence
in question or a part thereof he had not been absconding but was admitted in
...;
Military Hospital, Ambala Cantt, the matter deserved a deeper scrutiny at the D
hands of the competent authority. The movement orders in respect of the
appellant who had been described as a patient clearly shows that he was
admitted in Amabala Cantt Hospital on 11.7.1990. The movement order
furthermore shows that he was also transferred to Chandigarh Hospital.
[Para 16) (484-G, H; 485-A]
E
2. Fairness and reasonableness in the action of the State whether in a
criminal proceeding or otherwise is the hallmark of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The doctrine of proportionality is one of the grounds on
the basis whereof the power of judicial review could be exercised.
(Para 17] (485-A, BJ F
,.
j

Ex.Naik Sardar Singh v. Union of India and Ors., (1991) 3 SCC 213;
Ranjit Thakur v. Union ofIndia and Ors., [1987) 4 SCC 611 and Nirma/ Lakra
v. Union of India & Ors., (2003) 1 SLJ 151, relied on.

3. It is legally permissible to award more than one punishment in terms G
ofs.71 of the Army Act, 1950 but s.39(a) specifically deals with the misconduct
in respect of absence without leave. It is one thing to say that legally it is
-~ permissible to impose more than one punishments but then also it is another
thing that in exercising the said power all attending situations which fell for
consideration by the punishing authority in regard to the quantum thereof
H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R.
'I-
...
A would not be taken into consideration. It is clear tha! the Commanding Officer
in the Summary Court Martial proceedings failed to take into consideration
the relevant fact and, thus, committed an error apparent on the face of the
record. In a case of this nature, imposition of both punishment of rigorous
imprisonment for six years as also dismissal from service was wholly
arbitrary in nature. It is also vitiated in law as all relevant facts were not
B taken into consideration. (Para 19) (485-E, F, G)

4. The Additional Solicitor General submitted that t.he appellant's '
..>-
condition had improved and, in fact the medical category was upgraded from
CEE to AYE and ultimately he was found fit for joining his duties only on
c 12.8.1991. The said submission, however, does not stand a moment's scrutiny.
What was required to be taken into consideration is the conduct of the
appellant for the period 16.7.1990 to 22.7.1991. It is not the case of the
respondents that even during the said period, his behaviour or mental
condition was such which enabled the authorities to put him on trial or his
behaviour even during the said period deserved a harsh punishment, assuming
D he was guilty of commission of misconduct. (Para 20) [485-H; 486-A-B)

5. On their own showing, the respondents accepted that during his entire· ---!-
service career, the appellant remained a mental patient and had been
undergoing his treatment in one hospital or the other. It was, therefore,
obligatory on the part of the Commanding Officer to take into consideration
E the said fact for the purpose of arriving at a finding of his guilt on the charges
of misconduct as also for fixing the quantum of punishment. It is in that limited
sense, assignment of some reasons in a case of this nature must be held to be
necessary. It is now a well settled legal principle which has firmly been
accepted throughout the world that a person merely by joining Armed Forces
F does not cease to be a citizen or be deprived of his human or constitutional
right. (Para 21) (486-C, DJ S-

6. Once it is held that arbitrariness of the Commanding Officer in the
matter of holding the appellant and awarding punishment upon him is apparent
on the face of the record, the impugned order must be held to be wholly
G unsustainable. (Para 22] [486-E]

7. Appellant has already undergone the sentence. He has not been
working since 1991. He ha~.also remained in Hospital for a long time. ~- ~
Although, thus, it is not possible to grant hi~ all the prayers made in his
writ petition before the High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and
H circumstances of this case, interest of justice would be met if it is directed
479
--
SHEEL KR. ROY v. SECRETARY MIO DEFENCE [S.B. SINHA, J.]

.! . - that he should be deemed to have been discharged from 7.9.1991. He would, A
thus, be entitled to all benefits arising therefrom. (Para 251 (487-A, B)

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. I 082 of
2005.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2005 of the High Court B
of Delhi at New Delhi in C.W.J.C. No. 3442of1998.

(
.;_, Lily Isabel Thomas for the Appellant.

Vikas Singh, ASG., Shilpa Singh, R.C. Kathiya, T. Parshad and Anil
Katiyar for the Respondents. c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Interpretation and application of some provisions of
the Army Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act") and Army Rules,
1954 (hereinafter referred to as "The Rules") arises for consideration in this D
appeal, which arises out of the judgment and order of a Division Bench of
-'
,._. the Delhi High Court dated 4.3.2005 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3442 of
1998, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

2. Appellant joined the Army Service on or about 18.8.1981. He is a
holder of B.Sc. (Biology) degree. He has received trade training in the Army E
as a Technician Electronic System. He passed the 54th Entrance Examination
from Army Cadets College from Debra Doon in the year 1986. He secured fj.rst
position in the South Command and third position on an all India basis. In
ordinary course, he would have become a Commisioned Officer upon obtaining
training from Army Cadet College, Debra Doon but prior thereto he was
F
1 posted to Ladakh. While posted at Leh, owing to high altitude of the place,
>.
he developed psychiatric problems. For want of necessary care, he became
a psychiatry patient. He had to undergo treatments in the Army Hospitals
situated at Chandigarh, Allahabad, Jabalpur and Ambala.

3. In the Medical Board proceedings held on 22.4.1987, the appellant G
was put in medical category 'CEE' wherein it was opined :

"This 27 yrs. Old serving soldier with more than 5 yrs. of service is
~~
a case of Neurosis-onset of illness in early Jan. 1987 while serving it
high altitude area.
H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R.

A Illness was characterised with acute onset of attacks of chest pain,
giddiness, vomiting and tingling sensation all over the body, physical.

Present Condition.

Examination and relevant laboratory parameters were within normal
B limits. He was evaluated psychiatrically at CH (WC) in Chandigarh in
Feb. 87.

Psychologically he was tense anxious and worried. He showed
preoccupation on somatic symptoms, craved for sympathy. Exaggerated
his symptoms and expressed his inability to withstand extreme cold
c climate and other environmental constraints, of high altitude area. He
had sleep and appetite disturbances with normal insight and judgment.

He has been managed with phychotherapy and anxiolytics for which
response is favourable it present a symptomatic. He is cheerful and
have no overt signs of anxiety. On motivation for further service is
D FM SF-10 dated IO Apr. 87 is unsatisfactory. He needs to be observed
in low medical category.

Recommended to be placed in medical category CEE temporary
psychological for 6112 yrs.

To be reviewed thereafter with fresh AFMSF-10 by his O.C. Unit."
E
[Emphasis supplied]

4. The medical re-categorization which was to take place on or about
21.l0.1987 was delayed. He continued to be on medi~al leave and was
F categorized to be in CEE category for six months. Thereafter he went on leave
as a part of annual leave, but he a!legedly over stayed for about 96 days.
r-
Some punishment was imposed on him by an order dated 5.12.89. He prior to --(
joining his present posting, was posted in another unit on 20. l.1990. He was
allegedly found fit to join his duties. He was again summarily tried and
awarded three days' pay fine despite the fact that his medical re-categorization
G had not been done timely. He was admitted to Medical Hospital, Ambala from
13 .5 .1990 to 7 .6.1990 for medical recategorisation. He was granted casual leave
for the period of 7.6.1990 to 18.6.1990 to visit his family, but he allegedly
overstayed his leave again for 20 days, even though there is nothing to show
as to whether he had been declared fit for joining his duties or not. There is
also nothing on record to show that any action was taken against him in
H
SHEELKR.ROYv. SECRETARYM/ODEFENCE[S.B.SINHA,J.) 481

J
respect thereof but admittedly he was admitted to Medical Hospital, Ambala A
for medical re-categoriz.ation. He was transferred to Command Hospital (Western
Command) on 16.7.1990.

5. For his purported absence for the period from 16.7.1990 to 22.7.1991,
a chargesheet was submitted which reads as under:
B
"The accused No.14243462A Sigmn(TES) Sheel Kumar Roy of2 Corps
Air Sp. Sig Unit is charged with :-
1
"'-
Ar. yAct
Section 39(a) ABSENTING HIMSELF WITHOUT LEAVE
c
In that he, at Ambala Cantt, absented himself without leave from Ml I,
Ambala Cantt. At IOOOh. on 16th July 1990 and remained so till
surrendered voluntarily at Depot regt. (Corps of Signals) Jabalpur at
.. 0700h on 22 Jul. 91.

Station : Ambala Cantt D
-1. Dated: 3 Sep. 91.
Sd/-(Amarjit Singh) Col.
Commanding Officer
2 Corps Air Sp. Sig Unit"
6. We would deal with this aspect of the matter a little later, but we may E
notice that it is borne out from the record that he had again been sent to
Command Hospital (Western Command) for medical re-categorization. Having
been found fit, he was allegedly discharged from the Hospital on 12.8.1991 upon
upgrading to Medical Category 'A YE'. He was summarily tried for another
misconduct and was awarded 7 days Rigorous Imprisonment and 7 days Pay F
fine.
"'
}--

7. It is further interesting to note that a Court of Enquiry was held in
tenns of Army Rule 22 of the Rules on 3. 9.1991 in regard to the alleged
overstay from 16.07.1990. In its opinion the Court of Enquiry observed:
G
"I. No.14243462 S/Man S.K. Roy of2 Corps Air Sup. Signal Unit had
absconded on 16 July 90 at 1000 h from M.H. Ambala Cantt while still
on their strength .
.....
2. No.14243462 S/Man S.K. Roy has been received by this hospital on
the authority of 2 Corps Air Sup. Sig. Unit vide their letter No.213/PC/ H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A SKR/03/X of29 Jul 91 and admitted to this hosp. On 30 Jul 91 (FN).

3. Absence period ofabove patient to be regularized administratively
as per existing orders by MH Ambala Cantt/2 Corps Air Sup Sig
Unit.

4. o.13964654 LINK/NA M.S. Pillai ex-MH Ambala Cantt now posted
B
to 151 Base Hosp. Has given false statement after having duly
cautioned that he had brought 3 patients where as No.14243462 SI
Man S.K. Roy was absconding from MH Ambala Cantt. Disciplinary
action against the individual is recommended."

c [Emphasis supplied]

8. We may also put on record that, as far back as 17.5.1990, his behaviour
having been found unsatisfactory, an opinion was formed that 'his mental
outlook and personal habits and his behaviour in the unit being unsatisfactory'
.....
as it was recommended not to retain him in service.
D
9. lt is really a matter of grave concern that, despite the recommendations
of the Court of Enquiry, he while undergoing punishment of7 days' Rigorous
Imprisonment by the order dated 30.8.1991, the charge-sheet in question
being dated 3.9.1991 was issued to the appellant by the Commanding Officer
of his unit. He. was tried in a Summary Court Martial proceeding held on
E 7.9.1991 only for an hour i.e. from 13.45 to 14.45 hrs. It is not again in dispute
that the Commanding Officer himself was the Prosecutor and also the Judge.
He was held guilty and sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous
imprisonment and was also the punishment of dismissal from service. On
Appeal, the ChiefofStaff, however, by order dated 5.10.1991 remitted three
F months' Rigorous Imprisonment maintaining the sentence of dismissal. He
made representations before the higher authorities.

10. The Writ Petition filed by the appellant, as noticed hereinbefore, has
been dismissed by the High Court. We may, however, before proceeding with
matter notice that the records of the Court of Enquiry were not placed before
G the High Court.

11. Ms. Lily Thomas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant inter alia would submit :

(0 Appellant having been suffering from mental illness and having
H· been undergoing rigorous imprisonment for seven days on a
SHEEL KR. ROYv. SECRETARY M/O DEFENCE [S.B. SINHA, J.] 483

different charge, service of the charge on him during that period A
as also holding of a Court Martial wherein the Commanding
Officer played both the role of a prosecutor as also a Judge
amount to denial of his human right as also Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. No legal assistance was also provided to
him and furthermore no time having been granted for preparation
')f his case as he was in custody, the proceeding should be B
eated to be an eye-wash.
1
.._
(ii) Imposition of two punishments, viz., rigorous imprisonment as
also dismissal from service is violative of Section 39 read with
Section 71 of the Act.
c
(ill) Appellant having been found to be not fit for being retained in
service in a medical proceedings held on 17 .5.1990, quick
successive convictions one for making a complaint to the Adjutant
General directly and another for violation of Section 39 of the Act
must be held to be wholly illegal. Charge against the appellant
in regard to his alleged unauthorized absence was based on D
--(
_.._ incorrect facts as from the movement order filed by the
respondents themselves, it would appear that he had been
admitted in Medical Hospital, Ambala on 11.7.1990.
(iv) Recommendations of the Court of Enquiry although noticed by
the Commanding Officer himself in the Summary Court Martial E
Proceedings having not been taken into consideration, the said
authority must be held to have misdirected itself in law. Had the
recommendations been taken into consideration, the Commanding
Officer would have regularized his leave and in any event he
having been found to be admitted in a Medical Hospital or in a
)
\.- Hospital as a patient, the findings of unauthorized absen~e is
F
perverse.

12. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on
behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that:

(i) the appellant having been found fit for joining his services, no G
illegality has been committed by the Commanding Offi9er in awarding
a punishment of six months' Rigorous Imprisonment as also dismissal
from service.
(ii) Although the appellant had pleaded guilty before the Commanding H
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.
..i.-
A Officer, he qad proceeded in terms of Section 116 of the Act on the
premise as· if the delinquent officer had not pleaded guilty and, thus,
the Summary Court Martial proceedings must be held to have been
conducted in accordance with law, particularly when he had again
pleaded guilty before the Commanding Officer in the said proceedings.

B (iii) The contentions raised before us having not been raised before
the High Court, this Court should not entertain the same.
,
13. The fact that the appellant was suffering from mental illness for a -+
long time is not in dispute. We have noticed hereinbefore that he was
recommended to be placed in Medical Category CEE for six to twelve years.
c His medical re-categorization, however, had not been done periodically.

14. From the records produced by the respondents, it is evident that the
appellant had remained in one or the other Army Medical Hospitals from
....
8.7.1990.

D 15. Although he is said to have absented himself on and from 10. 7.1990,
- !-
it now transpires that he had been admitted at the Command Hospital, Ambala __,.
Cantt from 11.7.1990. This discrepancy has not been explained. The Court of
Enquiry in the aforementioned situation must be presumed to have made
recommendations for regularization of his leave upon consideration of the
relevant records and particularly the movement orders. It is true that the .
E
opinion_ofthe Court of Enquiry is only recommendary in nature but it is also
true that the Commanding Officer in a proceeding for Summary Court Martial
was required to take that fact into consideration. It is one thing to say that
the recommendations of the Court of Enquiry had not been accepted but then
if such recommendations had been made having regard to the materials which
F were brought on the records by the respondents themselves, we are of the 't
-f
opinion that it was obligatory on his part to assign some reasons in support
thereof. It is evident that the premise on which such recommendation has
been made by the Court of Enquiry was not taken into consideration in the
Summary Court Martial proceeding.

G 16. In any event, the respondents themselves should have explained in
their counter-affidavit as to why the recommendations of the Court of Enquiry
were not accepted. Once it is held that for the period of the purported absence
·-r
in question or a part thereof he had not been absconding but was admitted
in Military Hospital, Ambala Cantt, the matter deserved a deeper scrutiny at
H the hands of the competent authority. The movement orders in respect of the

..;
SHEEL KR. ROY v. SECRETARY MIO DEFENCE [S.B. SINHA, J.] 485
appellant who had been described as a patient clearly shows that he was A
-1
admitted in Amabala Cantt Hospital on 11.7.1990. The movement order
furthermore shows that he was also transferred to Chandigarh Hospital.

17. Fairness and reasonableness in the action of the State whether in
a criminal proceeding or otherwise is the hallmark of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. The doctririe of proportionality is one of the grounds on the basis B
whereof the power of judicial review could be exercised. It was so held in
Ex.Naik Sardar Singh v.Union of India and Ors. (1991] 3 SCC 213.

f
-<-- 18. We may also notice that in Ranjit Thakur v. Union ofIndia and Ors.,
reported in (1987] 4 SCC 611, this Court held:
c
" ... The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within.
the jurisdiction and discretion of the Court-Martial. But the sentence
has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive
or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence
as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence
D
of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of
judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is,
_., otherwise, within the exclusive province of the Court-Martial, if the
. decision of the Court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance
of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction.
Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review." E

19. We although agree with the learned Additional Solicitor General that
it is legally permissible to award more than one punishment in terms of
Section 71 of the Act but we may notice that Section 39(a) specifically deals
with the misconduct in respect of absence without leave. It is one thing to
say that legally it is permissible to impose more than one punishments but F
then also it is another thing that in exercising the said power all attending
.. situations which fell for consideration by the punishing authority in regard
't-
to the quantum thereof would not be taken into consideration. It is clear that
·the Commanding Officer in the Summary Court Martial proceedings failed to
take into consideration the relevant fact and, thus, committed an error apparent
G
on the face of the record. We are also of the opinion that in a case of this
nature, imposition of both punishment of rigorous imprisonment for six years
as also dismissal from service was wholly arbitrary in nature. It is also vitiated
in law as all relevant facts were not taken into consideration .
...,.
20. The learned Additional Solicitor General took pains in explaining to H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R.

A us that the appellant's condition had improved and, in fact the medical
category was upgraded from CEE to AYE and ultimately he was found fit for
joining his duties only on 12.8.1991. The said submission, however, in our
opinion, does not stand a moment's scrutiny. What was required to be taken
into consideration is the conduct of the appellant for the period 16.7.1990 to
B 22. 7. I 991. It is not the case of the respondents that even during the said
period, his behaviour or mental condition :was such which enabled the
authorities to put him on trial or his behaviour even during the said period
deserved a harsh punishment, assuming he was guilty of commission of
misconduct.

C 21. On their own showing, the respondents accepted that during his
entire service career, the appellant remained a mental patient and had been
undergoing his treatment in one hospital or the other. It was, therefore,
obligatory on the part of the Commanding Officer to take into consideration
the said fact for the purpose of arriving at a finding of his guilt on the charges
of misconduct as also for fixing the quantum of punishment. It is in that
D limited sense, assignment of some reasons in a case of this nature must be
held to be necessary. It is now a well settled legal principle which has firmly
been accepted throughout the world that a person merely by joining Armed
Forces does not cease to be a citizen or be deprived of his human or
constitutional right. This aspect of the matter has been considered by a
E Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Nirmal Lakra v. Union of India
& Ors., reported in (2003) I SLJ 151.

22. Once it is held that arbitrariness of the Commanding Officer in the
matter of holding the appellant and awarding punishment upon him is apparent
on the face of the-record, the impugned order must be held to be wholly
F unsustainable.

23. We regard our inability to accept the contentions of the learned t
Additional Solicitor General that even in a case of this nature we would shut ·f

our eyes to the realities of case and allow gross injustice meted to a citizen
of India to be perpetuated on mere technicalities.
G
24. Moreover, we have noticed hereinbefore that the learned counsel for
the appellant stated before us that even the recommendations of the Court
of Enquiry had not been produced before the High Court. If that be so, even
at that stage, the appellant did not have the advantage of a better assistance
from his counsel.
H
SHEEL KR. ROYv. SECRETARY MIO DEFENCE [S.B. SINHA, I.] 487
25. The question, however, which arises for consideration is the relief A
which can be granted to the appellant. He has already undergone the sentence.
He has not been working since 1991. He had also remained in Hospital for
a fong time. Although, thus, it is not possible for us to grant him all the
prayers made in his writ petition before the High Court, we are of the opinion
t~at keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, interest 1i3
of justice would be met if it is directed that he should be deemed to have been
discharged from 7.9.1991. He would, thus, be entitled to all benefits arising
therefrom. The appeal is allowed in part and to the extent mentioned
_...,( herein before. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall
be no order as to costs.

D.G. Appeal allowed.
c

-