Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... and goc 57 mtn div thereby violating para 552 and 557 of reg. for the army 1987. fourth charge army act section 63 an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline in that he, at field on 20 feb 97, 26 jun 97 and 27 jun 97 refused to sign on ..... 44270p maj ps nikam, sm. (f) maj pushpinder singh having visited the principal jnv schools house at night and his sister-in-law coming to the army post. third charge army act section 63 an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline in that he, at field on 04 feb 97 bypassed the channel of comd by corresponding directly with goc 3 corps ..... at field on 29 dec 96 when on night sentry duty at no.01 bunker from 1900 hrs to 2100 hrs. was found intoxicated on his post. second charge army act section 56(b) making false allegation against his superiors in that he, at field on 04 feb 97 made certain false allegation on the following issues against ic 48302k maj pushpinder .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... questions which have been referred to the tribunal are answered as under: (1) section 15 will over ride section 164 of the army act and the tribunal has full jurisdiction to entertain the appeal notwithstanding any petition filed by aggrieved party u/s 164 of the army act, 1950. (2) the power u/s 15 of the tribunal is not dependent on ..... the statutory representation u/s 164 (2) of the army act, 1950. it is independent ..... adjudicatory power and appeal against the order passed by the court martial or any connected therewith will be maintainable. (3) the pendency of the petition under section 164 will not bar to exercise of power u/s 15 of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... otherwise it is related to an incident of 1995. during course of arguments an attempt was made to show that the applicant should not have been punished under army act section 40 (a). as the said punishment was not challenged now it cannot be challenged before us at this belated stage. contentions placed in this respect are not ..... sustainable and hereby rejected. as per promotion policy punishment under army act section 40 (a) debars promotion for three years. for extension in service the policy dated 21.9.1998 would be applicable. under that policy if an ..... brought out that the applicant, in 1995, had used criminal force against a superior officer and was punished under army act section 40 (a) and thus he was permanently debarred from grant of extension of service vide army hq policy dated 21.9.1998. the respondents have stressed that promotion and extension of service are entirely different subjects .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... the relevant part of the pleading, in this regard found in the writ petition, is extracted below:8. that on 24.dec.2005 the petitioner was charged malafidely under army act sec 46(b) for feigning disease i.e. chest pain and was punished with severe reprimand despite his protest by his commanding officer, then lt. col. rajiv bakshi, ..... originally sought to be awarded on 24.12.2005 under section 46(b) of the army act. at the petitioners representation, the entry in respect of the said penalty had been struck off by the concerned superior officer. in these circumstances, insertion ..... the petitioners application was rejected on 8.10.2012. the reason cited by the respondents was that he was a recipient of the punishment awarded under section 46(b) of the army act in respect of an incident which occurred on 13.12.2005.2. the writ petitioner avers and his counsel contends that the punishment in question was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... regiment.4. the charges for which the petitioner was tried at the summary court martial were two in numbers. the first was for the offence under section 36(d) of the army act, 1950 i.e. without orders from the superior officer leaving his guard. it was alleged that while on duty the petitioner left the quarter guard between 04 ..... 05:45 hours on january 04, 2000 without permission from his superior officer. the second charge was of having committed an offence under section 49(b) of the army act 1950 on the allegation that the act of being away from the duty place facilitated a prisoner yadhwinder singh to escape from the custody.5. we need not note the evidence ..... not arise. hence, the second charge was not even maintainable.9. the truncated argument is based on a convoluted logic. section 49(b) of the army act 1950 makes it an offence where a person subject to the act commits the offence of wilfully or without reasonable excuse allowing any person to escape who is committed to his charge or .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... dismissed from service. the sentence of dismissal is less than the sentence of 7 years imprisonment which is the maximum punishment which can be awarded under army act section 63 depriving the appellant of pensionery benefits as a result of his dismissal as pension regulations authorised automatic forfeiture of pension in case of dismissal. 15 ..... defence counsel, col s s gajraj. 13. the appellant was initially served with a charge sheet on 2 oct 1995 and charged under army act section 63 for an act prejudicial to good order in military discipline. this was typographical error and the same was corrected on 4 oct 1995 before the commencement of ..... proved beyond reasonable doubt (d) two punishments were awarded for the same offence and the punishment was harsh and disproportionate to the offence. maximum punishment under army act section 63 prescribed is 7 years ri. the sentence of his dismissal is therefore harsher than the maximum punishment prescribed. the sgcm also did not punish him .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... only) from sh. ramesh chand, as a motive for procuring the enrolment of sh. sanjeev kumar, son of said sh. ramesh chand. third charge army act obtaining for himself a gratification as a motive section 64 (e) for procuring the enrolment of a person. in that he, at ambala cantonment, on 14 august 2006 to 16 august 2006 directly ..... ) from sh. gyan singh, as a motive for procuring the enrolment of sh. sanjeev kumar, son of said sh. gyan singh. second charge army act obtaining for himself a gratification as a motive section 64 (e) for procuring the enrolment of a person. in that he, at ambala cantonment, on 24 july 2006 directly obtained for himself a ..... with three offences as under. charge sheet the accused no. 14416501n nk(dmt) naresh kumar bhati, 218 medium regiment is charged with :- first charge army act obtaining for himself a gratification as a motive section 64 (e) for procuring the enrolment of a person. in that he, at ambala cantonment, on 14 july 2006 directly obtained for himself a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... dut prasad gurung of his unit a gratification as a reward for getting him medically fit to attend junior leader course serial number 45. second charge under army act section 64(e) obtaining for himself a gratification as a reward for procuring an advantage for a person in the service in that he, at ghingarikhal (uttranchal), ..... months imprisonment and dismissal was harsh considering the otherwise good conduct of the appellant. 5. the charges against the appellant are as given below:- first charge under army act section 64(e) obtaining for himself a gratification as a reward for procuring an advantage for a person in the service in that he, at ghingarikhal (uttranchal), on ..... physical training exercise because of his lmc status. consequently, the co of 2/5 gr implicated the appellant in a false and fabricated case under section 64(e) of the army act, i.e. allegedly obtaining for himself a gratification as a reward for procuring an advantage for a person in the service. the conspiracy was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... and illegal and further seeks to be reinstated in service. 3. on behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the appellant was tried for the offence under army act section 52(a) as under: army act sec. 53(a) committing theft of property belonging to a military institution, in that he, at haldwani, between 12 may 97 and 01 jun 97, while being ..... the surprise check team and, therefore, it cannot be construed as a case of theft. it was, therefore, contended that the appellant should not have been charged under army act section 52(a) for theft. it was also urged that instead of trying him by a court martial, he should have been tried by a civil criminal court because the ..... duties as a driver, he was dismissed from service and sent home for no fault of his. the allegation against the appellant was that he committed an act of theft under army act section 52(a), in that he between 12.5.1997 and 1.6.1997, while performing the duties of assistant salesman of csd canteen of his unit, committed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... quashing the findings and sentence arrived at by the summary general court martial (sgcm) on 8.10.1999, whereby he was held guilty of the offence under army act section 69 and sentenced to (i) be cashiered; and (ii) suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. on formation of this tribunal, the case was transferred for ..... , it would be appropriate to quote the first three charges, wherein the appellant was found guilty. they are: first charge army act section 69 committing a civil offence, that is to say, robbery, contrary to section 392 of the ranbir penal code, in that he, at srinagar, on 19 feb 97, by wrongfully restraining the under-mentioned ..... naseemabad, sunderbal, srinagar committed robbery in respect of a maruti car from the possession of said manzoor ahmed walvir. third charge army act section 69 committed a civil offence, that is to say, robbery, contrary to section 392 of the ranbir penal code, in that he, at srinagar, on 21 feb 97, by wrongfully restraining shri ghulam rasool .....
Tag this Judgment!