NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has reinstated in service a Lt Col, an ENT specialist in AMC, faulting the convening of general court martial against the officer mainly because the Army had appointed a judge advocate, who renders legal advice to the GCM, who was lower in rank to that of the officer proceeded against.
In Sep 2002, it was alleged that while examining new recruits at Military Hospital Secunderabad, Lt Col Rahul Arora had accepted a bribe to change ‘unfit’ remark to ‘review after 15 days’ for one of the recruits.Lt Col Arora was chargesheeted and a GCM found him guilty to order his dismissal from service. The Armed Forces Tribunal upheld the dismissal.
However, the Punjab and Haryana HC overturned the GCM decision faulting the appointment of Judge advocate, who was in the rank of a major which was lower than the officer proceeded against. HC had said that it was against the law laid down by the SC in its decision in the year 2000 in Charanjit Singh Gill case, which had barred appointment of a judge advocate junior to the officer facing GCM. The Union govt had appealed against the HC verdict in SC.
A bench of Justices Prashant K Mishra and P B Bharale said not only was the HC correct in declaring the convening of GCM illegal, it was also improper on the part of the Army authorities to tweak the letter appointing the judge advocate after it was issued to Lt Col Arora.
In the 25-year-old judgment, the SC had given a small window for appointment of a lower ranked officer as judge advocate only if the authorities record in writing that a person of the same or higher rank to that of the officer proceeded against was not available.
Probably finding that the notice appointing a major as judge advocate for the GCM against Lt Col Arora could be hit by the SC judgment, the army authorities after issuance of the notice had inserted the words ‘higher rank officer not available’ to attempt to justify engaging a major as judge advocate.
The SC notices that two different letters were produced, one by Lt Col Arora and the other by the army authorities, before the HC. The bench said, “It is quite apparent that the reason for culling out exceptions as held permissible by this Court in Charanjit Singh Gill case, was not mentioned in the document while the same was dispatched by the issuing authority and supplied to Lt Col Arora.”
Dismissing the Union govt’s appeal, the SC said, “Subsequent mentioning of the reason in the other document, after putting signatures by the issuing authority, was unauthorized and impermissible, the HC has correctly held that the convening order suffers from incurable defect.”
In Sep 2002, it was alleged that while examining new recruits at Military Hospital Secunderabad, Lt Col Rahul Arora had accepted a bribe to change ‘unfit’ remark to ‘review after 15 days’ for one of the recruits.Lt Col Arora was chargesheeted and a GCM found him guilty to order his dismissal from service. The Armed Forces Tribunal upheld the dismissal.
However, the Punjab and Haryana HC overturned the GCM decision faulting the appointment of Judge advocate, who was in the rank of a major which was lower than the officer proceeded against. HC had said that it was against the law laid down by the SC in its decision in the year 2000 in Charanjit Singh Gill case, which had barred appointment of a judge advocate junior to the officer facing GCM. The Union govt had appealed against the HC verdict in SC.
A bench of Justices Prashant K Mishra and P B Bharale said not only was the HC correct in declaring the convening of GCM illegal, it was also improper on the part of the Army authorities to tweak the letter appointing the judge advocate after it was issued to Lt Col Arora.
In the 25-year-old judgment, the SC had given a small window for appointment of a lower ranked officer as judge advocate only if the authorities record in writing that a person of the same or higher rank to that of the officer proceeded against was not available.
Probably finding that the notice appointing a major as judge advocate for the GCM against Lt Col Arora could be hit by the SC judgment, the army authorities after issuance of the notice had inserted the words ‘higher rank officer not available’ to attempt to justify engaging a major as judge advocate.
The SC notices that two different letters were produced, one by Lt Col Arora and the other by the army authorities, before the HC. The bench said, “It is quite apparent that the reason for culling out exceptions as held permissible by this Court in Charanjit Singh Gill case, was not mentioned in the document while the same was dispatched by the issuing authority and supplied to Lt Col Arora.”
Dismissing the Union govt’s appeal, the SC said, “Subsequent mentioning of the reason in the other document, after putting signatures by the issuing authority, was unauthorized and impermissible, the HC has correctly held that the convening order suffers from incurable defect.”
#Judge #Advocate #rank #accused #GSM #India #News #Times #India
