Allahabad High Court
Lt. Col. V.K. Pandey vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2004)1UPLBEC182
Author: M. Katju
Bench: M. Katju, Umeshwar Pandey
JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned punishment of reprimand passed on 17th March. 1992 by the GOC. UP Area for rte offence of "An Omission Prejudicial To Good Order and Military Discipline" allegedly committed by the petitioner when he was Garrison Engineer, at Air Force Station. Agra between November, 1986 and October. 1989. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 16.11.93, Anncxure-4 to the petition rejecting the statutory complaint against the reprimand. He has also prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order rejecting his statutory complaint against non-promotion vide order dated 1.6.94. Annexure-6. He has prayed for an order directing respondents to promote him to the post of Lt. Col (Selection Grade). Colonel and Brigadier with retrospective effect from the date from which his Juniors were promoted.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner is a 1973 Batch Corps of Engineers Officers commissioned in the Indian Army on 17.6.73. At present the petitioner is a Time Scale Lt. Col. with effect from 1994, which is considered as a Major for all purposes including rank pay.
3-A. A Selection Board for 1973 Batch Officers of the Corps of Engineers was held in May, 1992, for promotion to Lt. Col. (Selection Grade) and the result was declared on 4.6.92 and it is alleged that the petitioner was found suitable for promotion vide order dated 20.7.92 Annexure-2 to the petition. However, he was not promoted to the rank of Lt. Col. (Selection Grade), when his turn came for promotion, whereas Officers Junior to him were promoted. Instead, the petitioner was put through a Special Review Board, in February, 1993, on account of the alleged punishment of reprimand awarded in March, 1992 by the G.O.U., U.P. Area in March, 1992. The petitioner made a representation against the award of reprimand by filing a statutory complaint under Section 27 of the Army Act to the Government of India vide Annexure-3 but the same was rejected on 16.11.93, vide Annexure-4. He also made a statutory complaint to the Government of India on 23.12.93 against his non-promotion to Lt. Col. (Selection Grade) vide Annexure-5 but that was also rejected on 1.6.1994 vide Annexure-6. The petitioner filed two writ petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and it is stated in Para 11 of the petition that these petitions were kept pending for about 8 years and intimately decided by a common judgment dated 28.4.2003 vide Annexure-7. It was held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that it docs not have jurisdiction in the matter and the petitioner may approach the Allahabad High Court as he was posted in U.P. at the relevant time. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court.
4. The reprimand was given to the petitioner because the specifications according to which the Hardstanding was to be constructed were issued by the Chief Engineer, Bareilly Zone, but the petitioner chose to adopt his own specifications owing to which major defects were noticed by the Air Force Authorities. Thereupon a Technical Board of Officers was constituted to ascertain the cause of the major defects and the Board gave an adverse report against the petitioner, which led to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
5. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Technical Board of Officers which has given a report adverse to the petitioner. The findings of the Technical Board of Officers on the basis of which the punishment of reprimand was given to the petitioner are findings of fact and we cannot interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction.
6. This Court cannot sit as a Court of Appeal to reassess the evidence and the findings of fact recorded by the Army Authorities. We can only interfere when there is flagrant violation of the Rules or some extreme arbitrariness. This is not a case of that nature. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in Maj. Surendra Singh Sajwan v. Union of India, in Writ Petition No. 3694 of 2000, decided on 3.2.2003, this Court is normally reluctant to interfere in Army matters, as that would be bad for the morale of the Army. This does not of course mean that the Court can never interfere in Army matters, but it shall do so only when there is clear and flagrant violation of the Rules or there is some extreme arbitrariness, which is not found in this case.
7. This Court is very reluctant to interfere in the internal discipline of the Army or matters relating to promotion and other service matters of Armed Forces personnel. The Indian Army is serving the country bravely often in very difficult circumstances, e.g., in disturbed areas and it would not be proper for this Court to interfere in their internal matters unless, there is a flagrant violation of the rules or some extreme arbitrariness. It is not for this Court to decide who should be promoted and who should not. This Court should ordinarily respect the internal autonomy of the Army and should interfere only in rare cases. The Army has a paramedical hierarchy and often an officer cannot be promoted because there are no vacancies in the higher ranks, even though he may be a good officer.
8. As regards the order rejecting the petitioner's statutory complaint learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this order is bad in law, as it does not give any reason. In this connection it has been held by the Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India. AIR 1990 SC 1984 (vide Para 47), that reasons are not required to be recorded for an order passed by the Conforming Authority which confirms the findings and sentence recorded by the Court-martial, nor are reasons require for an order passed by the Central Government dismissing the post confirmation petition.
9. There is no force, in this petition and it is dismissed.