Army Act, 1950: s.122 – Limitation – In terms of s.122 of the Army Act, no trial by Court Martial of any person subject to the Army Act, for any offence could be commenced after the expiration of a period of three years, and such period would commence on the date of offence or where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the authority competent to initiate action, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or authority, whichever is earlier – In the instant case, aggrieved army officer wrote a letter to concerned authority that he was aware that appellant-army officer was sending indecent messages to his wife which were sexually explicit in nature and that he had reasonable cause to believe that the appellant and his wife had indulged in illegitimate physical relationship with each other – The date on which letter was written would be the crucial date on which the aggrieved person had the knowledge about the commission of the alleged offence – The time started running from the said date for the purpose of s.122 of the Act – Hence for the purpose of s.122, the two dates will be relevant i.e., the date when the alleged offence comes to the knowledge of the person aggrieved and the date on which the authority competent to initiate action comes to know about the alleged offence – Trial by the General Court Martial began after three years and therefore was clearly barred under s.122 of the Act – The said proceedings are quashed – However, as per the well settled legal position, the power of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceedings is extremely limited – It is circumscribed by the limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice – The power of judicial review is an evaluation of the decision-making ORS.
process and not of the merits of the decision itself – Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant pursuant to the chargesheet shall continue in accordance with law – Administrative law – Judicial review.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. For the purpose of Section 122, the two dates will be relevant i.e., the date when the alleged offence comes to the knowledge of the person aggrieved and the date on which the authority competent to initiate action comes to know about the alleged offence. As per Section 3(xvii) “offence” means any act or omission punishable under the said Act and includes a civil offence as defined in Section 3(ii) which means an offence triable by a criminal court. Chapter-VI of the Army Act deals with the offences. Section 45 which falls under the said Chapter states that Army officer, junior commissioner officer or warrant officer who behaves in a manner unbecoming his position and the character expected of him shall be liable to suffer punishment as prescribed therein. [Para 8][706-F-H; 707-A]
2. In the instant case, having regard to the contents of the letter dated 13.08.2015 written by the aggrieved person to the concerned authority, it clearly transpires that he was aware of the alleged act of the appellant having stolen the affection of his wife on the date of the said letter. He had specifically mentioned in the said letter that it was for bringing to the notice of the concerned authority about the appellant’s act of stealing affection of his wife. He had further alleged therein that the appellant was sending indecent messages to his wife which were sexually explicit in nature and that he had reasonable cause to believe that the appellant and his wife had indulged in illegitimate physical relationship with each other. Therefore, the date 13.08.2015 would be the crucial date on which the aggrieved person had the knowledge about the commission of the alleged offence. Therefore the time had started running from the said date for the purpose of Section 122 of the said Act. The Convening Authority having directed the trial by General Court Martial vide order dated 22.11.2018, the same was clearly beyond three years and therefore barred under Section 122 of the Act. However, as per the well settled legal position, the power of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceedings is extremely limited. It is circumscribed by the limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. The power of judicial review is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not of the merits of the decision itself. It is therefore clarified that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant pursuant to the chargesheet issued on 19.11.2018 shall continue in accordance with law. [Paras 9, 11][707-B-D, F; 708-A-B]
Regional Manager, UCO Bank and Anr. v. Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj (2022) 5 SCC 695 – relied on.
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.