T.A. No. 59 of 2009 and W.P. No. 14469 of 2001. Case: Balusu Nagesh S/o Viswanadham Vs Union of India (UOI) represented by the Chief of Army Staff, Indian Army, The General Officer in Command, Northern Command and The Commanding Officer. Armed Forces Tribunal

Case NumberT.A. No. 59 of 2009 and W.P. No. 14469 of 2001
Party NameBalusu Nagesh S/o Viswanadham Vs Union of India (UOI) represented by the Chief of Army Staff, Indian Army, The General Officer in Command, Northern Command and The Commanding Officer
CounselFor Appellant: P. Venkatarama Sarma, Adv. and For Respondents: Haja Mohideen Gisthi, SCGSC and Sandeep Kumar, Adv.
JudgesA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J. (J) and S. Pattabhiraman (A), Members
IssueArmed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007; Army Act, 1950 - Sections 39, 40, 48(1) and 164; Army Rules - Rules 22, 23, 25 and 28
Judgement DateApril 13, 2010
CourtArmed Forces Tribunal


S. Pattabhiraman, Member (A), (Regional Bench, Chennai)

  1. The petitioner, dismissed by way of Summary Court Martial, petitioned the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by way of Writ Petition No. 14469 of 2001 and the same, on the formation of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 has been transferred to the AFT, Regional Bench, Chennai and re-numbered as T.A. No. 59/2009.

  2. The facts relevant to the examination of the issue are set out as follows:

    2(a) The petitioner was recruited as an Ambulance Assistant in Army Medical Corps on 28.10.1987. After requisite training, he was posted to the 333 Field Ambulance, C/o 56 APO. Later, the petitioner was transferred to the 2340 Field Ambulance at Nasirabad and then to Military Hospital, Faizabad and then to 308 Field Ambulance in the field area near Drass at the time of Operation Vijay. While working as a Sepoy in 308 Field Ambulance, the petitioner was tried for a charge of assault on JC 69037 K Sub Maj N A Gurubaksh Singh at 1430 hours on 05.05.2000 while he was coming out of his office and pushing him to the ground under influence of alcohol. A tentative charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 06.05.2000. After reading the charges to the petitioner, the hearing also commenced on the same day. During examination, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and at the Court Martial, the petitioner denied the allegation of consumption of alcohol and stated that he had gone to the main office to meet the Sub Major for getting leave. Thereafter, when the Sub Maj did not give permission and caught hold of the petitioner, he tried to release his hand and in the process, the Sub Major fell down and the petitioner would say that there was no intention on his part to throw him to the ground. Not satisfied with this explanation, the third respondent issued the final charge sheet on 09.05.2000 under Section 40(a) of the Army Act, of assaulting the superior officer. The Court Martial, thereafter, without appreciating the evidence on record and relying on the evidence of interested witnesses, had awarded punishment of dismissal from service by proceedings No. 308/Coy/13974711/BM(PC) dated 10.05.2000. Based on this impugned letter, the petitioner forwarded his plea to the GOC, 8 Mountain Division, C/o 56 APO on 10.07.2000 appealing against the punishment of 'dismissal from service' on grounds of victimisation and stating that he had not consumed alcohol on that day.

    2(b) The petitioner would say that in the final charge sheet issued by the respondents on which he was tried, there is no mention that assaulting of the officer was in an alcoholic condition and hence there was variation in the two charge sheets. The petitioner would go on to say that a perusal of the two charge sheets would go to show that...

To continue reading

Request your trial