OA 72/2012. Case: Ex. Lance Naik Vikash Bisht Vs Union of India & Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | OA 72/2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Krishna Muraree Singh, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. J.S. Yadav, Advocate |
| Judges | Sunil Hali, J. (Member (J)) and J.N. Burma, Member (Ad.) |
| Issue | Army Act, 1950 - Sections 164(2), 63 |
| Judgement Date | July 12, 2013 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Judgment:
(Principal Bench At New Delhi)
-
The petitioner has come up before this court against the order of dismissal passed by the Summary Court Martial dated 13.08.2011. It appears that the petitioner had filed a statutory complaint against this order before the Chief of Army Staff under section 164(2) of the Army Act. The statutory complaint has been disposed of by the Army Chief of Staff rejecting the petition. However, the sentence of dismissal has been converted into an order of discharge. Said order has been produced by the learned counsel for the respondent today. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the petition certain facts need to be noted herein. The petitioner was enrolled on 27.07.2002 as Sepoy in 64 Assault Engineer regiment, Indian Army and was posted at different places. He was attached to head quarter central command, Lucknow as draftsman. It appears that Patna Police got information that Mr. Sudhanshu Sudhakar, who had been dismissed from the Army, was proceeding to Nepal with secret information and documents to hand over to Pakistani intelligence agents. During the investigation it transpired that he was providing secret information and documents relating to Indian Army to one Mr. Rana, a Pakistani intelligence officer. Said Sudhanshu Sudhakar disclosed the name of M.A. Ravindran and CFN Vivek Rajan as his accomplice in sending secret information to the Pakistani intelligence agents. The name of Lance Naik Anil Kumar, Naik (clerk) PT Rao and the petitioner also came into light. In the court of inquiry it came to light that they were in contact with the said Sudhanshu Sudhakar.
-
A court of inquiry was ordered. On the completion of the court of inquiry, as provided under rule 22(2) of the Army Rule, hearing of the charge was initiated. After the hearing of the charge, the Commanding Officer ordered recording of evidence. During the course of recording of summary evidence, statement of the petitioner and other witnesses were recorded. The petitioner in his statement admitted that he was in contact with Sudhanshu Sudhakar and enjoyed his hospitality at Lucknow. He has also admitted that cigarette filled with ganja was offered to him by Sudhanshu Sudhakar. In the statement recorded by Dy. S.P. he has admitted that the petitioner was asked by the said Sudhanshu Sudhakar that he should provide information of Indian Army to him. However, no information was provided by the petitioner. After the conclusion of...
To continue reading
Request your trial