Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – s.30 r/w s.31 – Disciplinary proceedings – Breach of good order of Air Force discipline – Court of Inquiry – District Court Martial (DCM) found appellant guilty for using insubordinate language to his superior officer, for using criminal force and for act prejudicial to good order of Air Force discipline – Tribunal concurred with the findings of the DCM and dismissed the appeal holding that there was direct evidence to prove misconduct on part of appellant and his involvement in use of criminal force to senior officer; that appellant also admitted that he had few drinks that day; that there was direct evidence of presence of appellant in the unruly crowd and the stand of the appellant that he was slapped was also not made out from the evidence on record – Appeal before Supreme Court – Held: The Tribunal had re-appreciated the evidence and had concurred with the findings of DCM – The view taken by Tribunal was a plausible view and, therefore, did not warrant any interference in appeal in terms of jurisdiction vested in Supreme Court under ss.30 and 31 of the Act – In terms of s.31 of the Act, an appeal to Supreme Court is maintainable with the leave of the Tribunal and such leave can be granted on the ground “that a point of law of general public importance” or “it appears to the Supreme Court that the point is one which ought to be considered by that Court” – No point of law of general public importance is involved in the instant case so as to entitle appellant grant of leave – Air Force Act, 1950 – s.161(2).
Dismissing the I.A. along with the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. PW11 was cross-examined on the question of manhandling of the appellant but he, categorically, denied the same. In fact, he deposed that the appellant pushed him from behind, whereas LAC slapped him on his left cheek. The statement of the witness was that the appellant has consumed liquor because he was smelling and his speech and behaviour was not good. The witness asked the appellant as to whether he had taken drink. The reply of the appellant was that not only he but everybody had taken drinks then why he alone was being questioned. PW 11 stated that he held the left arm of the appellant and moved 2-3 steps towards the billet and told the appellant to go to billet. But the appellant sat on cement lid of drainage after moving 5-6 meters. He again held his left arm and told him to go to billet but he did not go. In the cross-examination, he denied that he pushed the appellant, he deposed that he held his hands, as he was under the influence of liquor. He denied the suggestion that he slapped the appellant. The question as to whether PW 11 has given slaps to the appellant is a question of fact. The Tribunal examined the statements of the witnesses to uphold charge nos. 3, 5 and 7 as proved. Thus, the stand of the appellant that he was slapped was not made out from the evidence on record. The Tribunal re-appreciated the evidence and concurred with the findings of the DCM. The view taken by the Tribunal was a plausible view and, therefore, did not warrant any interference in appeal in terms of jurisdiction vested in this Court under Sections
30 and 31 of the Act. There is no point of law of general public importance is involved which may warrant grant of leave to the appellant. [Paras 11, 12, 13][166-D-H; 167-A-B, F]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.