Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... .00 160.50 144.50 136.00 136.00 22800.00 22800.00 74000.00 77500.00 32100.00 28800.00 27200.00 27200.00 total 435000.00 twelfth charge army act sec. 41(2) disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer in that he, at agra, on or about 15 aug 1998, having been ordered by the chief engineer, lucknow ..... (i) indep electronic ballest for 36 and 40 watt fluorescent tubular lamp 1000 nos 435.00 435000.00 total 435000.00 seventh charge army act sec. 52(f) such an offence as is mentioned in clause (f) of section 52 of the army act, with intent to defraud, in that he, on 18 may 1998, at the place and holding appointment as aforestated in the first ..... .00 36.00 1415084.00 79848.00 (c) suitable capacitor for fan 1000 nos 17.50 17500.00 total 1512432.00 second charge army act sec. 52(f) such an offence as is mentioned in clause (f) of section 52 of the army act, with intent to defraud, in that he, on 21 apr 1998, at the place and holding appointment as aforestated in the first .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... upon by irrelevant considerations and merely on inferences; the culpability of the appellant was fixed. before we proceed to discuss the evidence on the charge under army act section 52(f), for which the appellant was held guilty, it may be mentioned that it is the settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that conviction cannot be ..... meat dressed and chicken, with intent to cause wrongful gain to shri ch shankarnarayan, the egg contractor. the gcm found the appellant guilty of the charges under army act section 52(f) and sentenced him to be dismissed from service. since both his pre and post confirmation petitions were rejected, he has come up in appeal. 5 ..... to the evidence on record and are pre-conceived. the findings suffer from non-compliance of the statutory provisions. the trial is barred by limitation under army act section 122. the charge against the appellant is mainly dependent upon the report of the technical officer who was associated with the court of inquiry. the technical .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... of officers before proceeding to make the local purchases and there is nothing to point out to dis-credit the testimony of this witness.charge no.9 : ninethcharge army act section 63an omission prejudicial to good order and military discipline,in that he,at roorkee, between 04 apr 94 and 20 apr 94, while commanding 297 company asc (supply ..... aforesaid asc articles were purchased, had not been approved by the station commander roorkee prior to the said purchases.third charge army act section 52 (f)such an offence as is mentioned in clause (f) of section 52 of the army act with intent to defraud,in that he,at roorkee, between 01 july 93 and 23 mar 94, while commanding 297 ..... 4. in this backdrop the evidence and other materials have been evaluated charge wise.charge no. 1 and 3 first charge army act section 52 (f)such an offence as is mentioned in clause (f) of section 52 of the army act with intent to defraud,in that he,at roorkee, between 26 oct 93 and 07 may 94, while commanding 297 company .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... any reason to interfere with the findings of the gcm. 17. lastly, it has been pointed out that the proceedings of the gcm are barred by army act section 122. the fraudulent act came to light on 1.7.2003, when the audit detected the misappropriation. thereafter, internal investigation took place and a court of inquiry was conducted. the ..... rs.7,47,919/- (rupees seven lacs forty seven thousand nine hundred nineteen only), are credited in the ledger, thereby causing a loss to the government. ninth charge army act section 63 an omission prejudicial to good order and military discipline, in that he, at lucknow, between 08 october 02 and 22 may 03, which came to the knowledge ..... only), with intent to defraud, did not take action to credit the said stores in the ledgers, thereby causing a wrongful loss to the government. seventh charge army act section 63 an omission prejudicial to good order and military discipline, in that he, at lucknow, between 19 august 02 and 22 may 03, which came to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... at field on 12 dec 97 on the expiry of the said leave until voluntarily rejoined at adm bn amc centre and school lucknow on 27 may 98 (an). army act 1950 section 39(a) absenting himself without leave in that he, atlucknow absented himself without leave from adm bn amc centre and school lucknow from 31 may 98 (fn) ..... contentions made by learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce the charge sheet, by which the appellant was tried by the scm. it reads: army act 1950 section 39(b) without sufficient cause overstaying leave granted to him in that he, at field on 16 oct 97 having been granted leave of absence from 17 oct ..... 5. the scm was held on 19 may,2000 by col. r. n. sharma, sr. registrar mh jabalpur, wherein the appellant was charged under army act section 39 a for absenting himself without leave and army act section 39 b without sufficient caused overstaying leave granted to him (charge sheet at annx. p-2.) . the appellant pleaded guilty on both charges (annex. k .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... dt 27 mar 78: t.a no. 484 of 2010 gautam sanyal 7 (a) 3005/95/e3 for rs.3680/- (b) 3005/96/e3 for rs.8438/- fifth charge army act section 63 an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline in that he, at gurdaspur, during sep 83, while performing the duties of ge(p) no.2 gurdaspur improperly placed following supply ..... . 13. now what remains to be considered is the quantum of sentence, so far as charge no. 1 is concerned. though the first charge refers about the offence under army act section 52(f) viz. having caused wrongful loss to the government by placing two supply orders in respect of repairs to 3 ton shaktiman ba no.37405 for rs.9900/- and ..... sentence of imprisonment for one year would commensurate with the gravity of the offence, for which he was held guilty. 14. the conviction of the appellant for the offence under army act section 52(f) specified in charge no.1 is upheld. he is acquitted of rest of the offences under charge nos.2, 3, 5 and 6. the sentence of cashiering .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... made to locate the individual and inform him about such duties. however, they were unable to locate the appellant. 7. with regard to the charge no.4 under section 63 of the army act i.e. visiting the duty bound area, witness no.2 maj ks sahrawat has testified that he saw the appellant coming out of the village and running back to ..... to such plea. it is therefore, to be presumed that the individual had infact made such wilful disobedience of orders. 6. with regard to charge no.3 under section 39(a) of the army act i.e. the individual was missing from the unit lines on 23.10.1997 from approx 1600 to 2100 hours, all the three witnesses i.e. witness no ..... .09.1997 to 09.10.1997. counsel for the appellant urged that the appellant had never disobeyed any lawful command as was purported to have been committed under section 41(i) of the army act. in this instance when he was ordered by his hav maj to report for duty the appellant replied that he had not been issued with the coat parka .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... is against the general court martial proceedings, whereby the appellant (lt col hardev singh) was held guilty of having committed the offence under section 69 of the army act read with section 354 of the indian penal code and sentenced to be dismissed from service. the writ petition stood transferred to this tribunal and was treated to ..... accused. it is not for the accused, in any situation, to question the provisions contained in army act section 125. in order to answer the rival contentions made by learned counsel for the parties, it would be useful to quote army act sections 125. it reads: 125. choice between criminal court and court-martial. when a criminal court ..... it should have been tried by a civil court and the provisions of section 69 of the army act were illegally applied in this case. 14. this was responded to by counsel for the respondents by stating that the provisions contained in army act section 125 are not discriminatory and they give discretion to the authority to decide .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... findings are not supported by evidence. it was reiterated that the dismissal from service is not a punishment contained in the hierarchy of punishment as listed in army act section 71 or section 40(b). therefore, that illegal punishment needs to be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 6. counsel for the ..... , the second punishment of dismissal was converted into discharge. 4. it was argued by counsel for the appellant that dismissal was not a punishment as listed in army act section 71, wherein the punishments which are awardable by a court martial are listed. therefore, for the goc-in-c to award him this punishment was illegal and ..... taken, which culminated in the scm of 31.8.1995, wherein he was awarded three months rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service, for three charges as under: army act section 36(c) leaving his post without orders from his superior officer. in that he, at unit loc, between 0045h and 0130h on 12 aug 95, when on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... by cdr meerut sub area (annx p-3). we notice from the show cause notice that on 16 dec 1992 the applicant was charged under army act section 48 (2) intoxication and army act section 40 (c) using insubordinate language to a superior officer. there are two punishments recorded that it is 7 days ri in military custody and ..... same. all the punishments awarded by col e t mathew were as follows : (a) 22 dec 1992 - army act section 48 - intoxication and insubordinate language. (b) 17 nov 1993 army act section 63 - unauthorised possession of govt property. (c) 19 nov 1993 army act section 41 (2) - disobeying lawful command of superior officer. 17. the applicant was serving with vsd which, although ..... entries as under:-ser no.date of offencetype of offencepunishment awarded(a)25 dec 91aa sec 48 intoxication1. deprived of acting rank of naik2. pay fine of 14 days(b)16 dec 9(i) aa sec 48 (2) intoxication(ii) aa sec 40 (c) using insubordinate language to his superior officer7 days ri in military custody. .....
Tag this Judgment!