Indian Military Cases in Supreme Court 1960- Contd 3

Sl No.	Title	Coram	Date of Judgement	Subject	HeadNotes
31	SUKHDEV SINGH GILL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.	Coram: M. JAGANNADHA RAO , M.B. SHAH	19/10/2000	Service Law: Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965: Rule 2. Military Service-Counting, of-Towards seniority-Held: The military service rendered in the three principal wings of the Armed Forces, namely, Army, Navy and A	Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD : 1. The words, "three wings" used in Rule 2 of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 have to be understood in the light of Section 3(xi) of the Army Act, 1950 which defines, the	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
32	U.O.I. & ORS. Vs. HARJEET SINGH SANDHU	Coram: CJI, R.C. LAHOTI, BRIJESH KUMAR	11/04/2001	Army Rules, 1954 : Rule 14. Officer-Termination of service of-By Central Government-Trial by court- martial-Inexpediency or impracticability of-Held: Services of an of-ficer may be terminated under S. 19 of the Army Act read with R. 14 either be	Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The principles of interpretation of statutes which apply to any other statute also apply to the legislation dealing with defence services; however, the considerations of the security of the State and enfo	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
33	UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. R.K. SHARMA	Coram: K.T. THOMAS , S.N. VARIAVA	09/10/2001	Military Law: Army Act, 1950-Sections 45, 57, 63, 71 and 72-General Court Martial-Penalty of dismissal from service-High Court held charges established- However, it set aside the order of dismissal as the sentence awarded was too harsh consider	Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD : 1. The Respondent did not obey the command from the Headquarter, did not make payment of certain amount and also falsified records in order to make out a case that he had already gone to two of the forw	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
34	UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs. P.O. YADAV	Coram: B.N. KIRPAL , SHIVARAJ V. PATL , P. VENKATARAMA REDDI	16/10/2001	Military Law : Army Act, 1950-Section 71-Pension Regulations for Army, 1961- Regulation J6(a) : Navy Act 1957-Section 81-The Navy (Pension) Regulations 1964- Regulation 15(2): Court Martial-Pensionary benefits-Forfeiture of-Respondents gui	Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. High Court was not right in quashing the orders of forfeiture of pension passed by the President/Central Government under the Army Pension Regulation 16(a) or Navy Pension Regulation 15(2) on the ground t	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
35	UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. L.D. BALAM SINGH	Coram: U.C. BANERJEE, Y.K. SABHARWAL	24/04/2002	Constitution of India, 1950-Article 33-Fundamental rights---Applicability of to army personnel-Held, army personnel does not form a class of citizen falling outside the purview of the Constitution-The provision by itself does not abrogate any righ	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. An Army Personnel is as much a citizen as any other individual citizen of this country. Incidentally, the provisions as contained in Article 33 does not by itself abrogate any rights and its applicabi	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
36	UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. SHIVENDRA BIKARAM SINGH	Coram: N. SANTOSH HEGDE , B.P. SINGH	24/04/2003	Military Laws: Navy Act, 1957-Sections 97, 101, 102, 162 and 163-Court Martial proceedings-Conviction-Objection as to competency of members of Court Martial proceedings to act as impartial judge-Trial Judge Advocate disposing of the objection h	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The first part of clause (a) of section 102 of the Navy Act, 1957 refers to any objection against a member on the ground, which affects his competency to act as an impartial judge. It enables the prose	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
37	Jasbir Kaur & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.	Coram: K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, B.N.SRIKRISHNA	13/11/2003	Army Act, 1911-Indian Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943- S-l I Military Nursing Act-Determination of Dress Code for Indian Military Nursing Services (IMNS)-The Code challenged as violative of Article 14 of Constitution as the dress code mad	Dismissing the petitions, the Court HELD: 1. That Indian Military Nursing Service is a separate class, sui generis, even though an auxiliary force of the Indian Military, is an undeniable fact. The historical background in which this force was	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
38	U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.	Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER	18/10/2005	Service Law: Border Security Force Rules, 1969: Rule 20-Misconduct-Termination of service of Officers-By Central Government-During raid in the hideout of militants two militants apprehended-Huge quantity of arms, ammunitions and explosives and	Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court is plainly in error in holding that it is only the Central Government which is competent to act in terms of Rule 20(2) of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969. The expression "as the case may	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
39	Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ranbir Singh Rathaur & Ors. etc.etc.	Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, TARUN CHATTERJEE	22/03/2006	Army Act 1950-Sections 18, 69. Official Secrets Act 1923-Section 3 (1) (c) Constitution of India-Article 226 and 310 Writ Petition-Maintainability of fresh Writ Petition-Court Martial Proceedings-Dismissal from Service-Writ Petitions challen	Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to the High Court, the Court HELD: 1. On a bare reading of the High Court's order and the averments in the writ petitions, one thing is crystal clear that there was no definite allegation against any p	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
40	Union of India and Ors. Vs. Capt. Satendra Kumar	Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA	18/07/2006	Service Law: Army Act, 1950; Section 19/Army Rules; Rule 13-A/Defence Service Regulations, Para 79: Commissioned Officer in Army-Promotion-Examination in two stages, Part B and Part D-Incumbent appearing in Part D examination without qualifying	Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The amended Army Instructions raising the period for qualifying the part B promotional examination from 13 years to 20 years though issued on 20th August, 1999 were made applicable with effect from 24.4.1998.	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
41	Romesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors.	Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, S.H. KAPADIA	01/08/2006	Army Act, 1950: Section 20(1)-Dismissal-Held, on facts, under the proviso to Rule 17 the Chief of the Army Staff and other officers are competent to order dismissal or removal without complying with the procedure set out in the main part of the Ru	Dismissing the appeal, the court HELD: 1.1. The Chief of the Army Staff had followed the requisite procedure and the certificate as contemplated in the proviso to Rule 17 of the Army Rules, 1954 has been given. The note clearly shows that various	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
42	Pradeep Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors	Coram: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT , LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA	19/04/2007	Army Act, 1950: ss. 39-A and 116-Dismissal for absence without leave-Acting Naik in Army-Remaining absent without leave-Withdrawal of rank and Summary Court-Martial-Punishment of dismissal awarded-Held: on facts, case is covered by rules relating	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. In the instant case, before respondent's absence from duty, he was in the acting rank of Naik. Therefore, the case is covered by rules relating to acting ranks contained in Army Instructions Nos. 84 and	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
43	Union of India Vs. S.P.S. Rajkumar and Ors	Coram: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT , LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA	24/04/2007	Service Law: Air Force Act, 1950; S.161 (2)/Air Force Rules, 1969; Rules 40 and 46: Dismissal form service-Group Captain-Allegations of financial impropriety-General Court Martial-Dismissal from service-Finding and sentence confirmed by Chief o	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. There was no challenge to the finding that there was no senior army officer available. Rule 46 of the Air Force Rules, which relates to the eligibility of the member does not speak of seniority. It speak	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
44	Sheel Kr. Roy Vs. Secretary M/O Defence & Ors	Coram: S.B. SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU	18/05/2007	Army Act, 1950: s.3(a)-Absence from duty-Recommendation of Court of Enquiry that absence period to be regularized as during period of absence he was admitted in Hospital-Order of dismissal and 6 years rigorous imprisonment passed without consideri	Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. From the records produced by the respondents, it is evident that the appellant had remained in one or the other Army Medical Hospitals from 8.7.1990. Although he is said to have absented himself on	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
45	Ram Sunder Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors	Coram: TARUN CHATTERJEE, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA	11/07/2007	Army Act, 1950; Ss. 20, 22 and 63/Army Rules, 1954; Rr. 12, 13 and 177: Indiscipline-Prejudicial act to good order-Employee serving as Petrol, Oil and Lubricant Clerk allegedly received money from an outsider for selling of gas illegally-Complaint-Co	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The order of discharge of the appellant from the Army service has been passed by the competent authority under Section 22 of the Army Act read with Rule 13 on the grounds covered under Column (2)(v) of t	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement