O.A No. 161 of 2010. Case: Brig. (Retd.) R.R. Sinha S/o Shri S.D. Sinha Vs Union of India (UOI) through The Secretary Ministry of Defence, Chief of the Army Staff through Additional Director General Integrated of Ministry of Defence (Army) and General Officer Commanding in Chief, Western Command. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A No. 161 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S.S. Pandey, Adv. and For Respondents: Ankur Chibber and Naveen Sharma, Advs. |
| Judges | S.S. Kulshrestha and S.S. Dhillon, Members |
| Issue | Army Act - Sections 122 and 122(1)(b); Army Rule - Rule 177 |
| Judgement Date | April 23, 2010 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Judgment:
S.S. Kulshrestha and S.S. Dhillon, Members, (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
-
The challenge in this petition centres round the order dated 9.2.2010 passed by the Chief of Army Staff wherein he has not confirmed the decision given by the General Court Martial (GCM) on 12.9.2009 wherein they held the trial of the petitioner to be barred by limitation.
-
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the capacity of Commanding Officer, the petitioner initiated Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of Maj. Rajan Batta for the year 1987-88. The said ACR was sent to Maj. Batta for obtaining his signatures at the place of attachment. Maj. Batta is alleged to have retained photocopy of the said ACR and returned the original duly signed by him through courier. In September 1999, based on records, including the ACR mentioned above, Maj. Batta was empanelled for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. Subsequently in 2001, he was not empanelled for the rank of Colonel. Lt. Col. Batta preferred a non- statutory complaint challenging the assessments made in four ACRs on the ground of inconsistency and subjectivity. Out of the four ACRs, two pertaining to 1996-97 and 1997-98 were initiated by the petitioner. The other two ACRs for 1993-94 and 1994-95 were initiated by some other officer. In the year 2002-03, Maj. Batta got partial relief in his non-statutory complaint for the year 1994-95, but no relief was granted for the ACRs of 1996-97 and 1997-98 which were initiated by the petitioner. These ACRs were agreeing with the overall profile of Maj. Batta. On 15.3.2004, Lt. Col. Batta made a complaint to the MS Branch along with a photocopy of the ACR sent to him for his signature by the petitioner. The copy of the ACR sent by Lt. Col. Batta was compared by the MS Branch with that of the ACR on record. They found material discrepancies between the two ACRs. A request was then made by Lt. Col. Batta vide letter dated 2.6.2004 to refer the matter for investigation. Pursuant thereto, an inquiry into the alleged tampering of the ACRs of Maj. Batta was conducted on 2.6.2004 itself. In the complaint, Lt. Col. Batta made certain accusations against the petitioner. Accordingly, a Court of Inquiry was held pertaining to the ACR for the year 1996-97, in which the following finding was made by CBI CFSL:
(l)...:-
(i) Photocopy held in possession of R-4(D3). That it was found conclusively by the CBI CFSL that the photocopy held in possession of Maj Rajan Batta was created by the technique of multiplicity of photocopying and was fraudulent in nature. Thus the report was conclusive giving no scope of any doubt that said photocopy used...
To continue reading
Request your trial