No. 9777 of 2009 Ex. Sube - Armed Forces Tribunal

disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him occurred when the
Petitioner was posted to 28 Rashtriya Rifles in Jammu & Kashmir, wherein he
was charged for an offence under Sections 34 (c) and 63 of the Army Act.
Consequently, a Court of Inquiry was conducted, which was followed by
recording of Summary of Evidence, and culminated with his trial by a SGCM
which commenced on 12 th March 2007 and concluded on 12 th April 2007.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the provisions of
Army Rules 23, 28 and 164 were not followed while framing charges against
the Petitioner and that the statement of the Petitioner as given in the summary
of evidence was not given due credence by the SGCM. He also argued that
Army Rule 22 was not followed properly proceedings of such
hearing/investigation were not recorded as per Army Order 24/94 and since
there was a defect in the hearing under Army Rule 22, all subsequent actions
become null and void.
4. The Petitioner argued that when the SGCM convened on 12 th March
2007 he was asked as to whether he had any objection to be tried by the
Presiding Officer or any of the Members constituting the Court. The Petitioner
replied that he could not answer that question till such time his defence
counsel Brig. R.P. Singh (Retd.) joined the Court. His defending officer,
though legally qualified, had only six months of service and was incapable of
defending the Petitioner without his counsel‟s assistance. However, on the
telephonic advice of Brig. R.P.Singh (Retd.), his defence counsel, the
defending officer was advised to proceed with the trial in case the Petitioner
had no objection to the Presiding Officer and the other Members. The
TA No. 168 of 2010 [W.P.(C) No.9777 of 2009] Page 2 of 23