Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Army Regulations provide for verbal punishment also. He has placed reliance on Regulations 327 which provides that reproof may be verbal or in writing or in both and that warning, a minor censure may take the form of reproof and be administered verbally or in writing to the service personnel by the Officer Commanding or by an authority superior in command to the Officer Commanding. Clause (D) of Regulation 327 provides as follows:

It should be ensured that before administering reproof by way of a warning or otherwise the competent authority applies its mind to the case and comes to a conclusion that ends of justice would be met by closing the case with reproof. Once a decision has been arrived at and the case closed by administration of a reproof by a competent authority, no superior authority can reopen the case.

4. Relying heavily on the said clause, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that as the case were closed by the General Officer Commanding after giving warning/rebuke to the petitioner, no superior authority can reopen the case as such the reopening of the case at the instance of any higher authority or the decision to initiate Court Martial proceeding and the service of charge sheet on the petitioner for the same offence is without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the Army Regulations are statutory regulations and have a binding force. He has placed reliance for this proposition on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of R.K. Pathik v. M.S. Pawar, 1986 Lab I.C 6920 wherein it has been held that the Regulations as framed under the provisions of the Army Act have statutory force, their non-publication may not be any avail as the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the Regulations are co-extensive.