Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

SUBMISSIONS:-

7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Summary Court Martial Proceedings are liable to be set aside as it has been proceeded on the alleged basis of plea of guilt by the petitioner, which is totally false, as is evident from the plea of guilt statement, which is unsigned. That apart, she would state that the Leave Certificate dated May 31, 1990 issued to the petitioner mentions the rank of the petitioner as Lance Naik and not Sepoy while the respondents in their counter affidavit for the very first time stated that the petitioner was demoted to the rank of Sepoy with effect from May 26, 1990. However, no documents to substantiate the claim of the respondents that the petitioner stood demoted have been supplied by the respondents. According to her, the case of the respondents that the petitioner was remitted to the rank of Sepoy vide order dated May 26, 1990 because he refused to go for training but on the other hand when the petitioner along with four other personnel from his company reported for training, the instructor told them he wants only volunteers and no nominated members for the training and therefore the petitioner and the other four personnel being nominated members were returned back but only the petitioner was marched up to the CO, who was biased against the petitioner. She would submit, the petitioner was never supplied with the copy of the order dated May 26, 1990 remitting him back to the rank of Sepoy nor the same has been produced by the respondents at any point of time. She would also state that even otherwise, the respondents who have taken the plea that a Court of Enquiry was conducted to look into the complaints made by the petitioner against the CO in which it was found that the allegations raised by the petitioner were false but no documents vis-à-vis the said Court of Enquiry have been produced by the respondents, which shows that the same is an afterthought. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire basis of awarding the sentence of dismissal from service to the petitioner is his alleged past conduct, which has not been substantiated by any document produced by the respondents. According to her, on the other hand a perusal of the Summary of Evidence will show that the respondents themselves recorded the petitioner's past record to be good. In the alternative, she has also stated that the punishment of discharge from service is totally disproportionate and is liable to be set aside. She states that in the following batch of matters, which have been remitted back to this Court by the Supreme Court, this Court had already passed orders:-