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

has clarified that by sarcastic he means derogatory remarks hurting a
person‟s self respect and pride. The witness went on to state that “second
burst on the Company Commander was not prevented because of lack of
reaction from those in the near vicinity, the lack of response of QRT and more
so failure on the part of Platoon Commanders to seize the initiative and
control the situation. The Platoon Commanders were missing for a long time
till Gnr/Opr Behera handed over his weapon.”
24. Learned counsel for the Respondents summed up by stating that all in
all the response of the Petitioner showed cowardice in the face of the enemy
wherein the petitioner all along focused and concentrated merely on self
preservation and had not taken any action to neutralize Gnr/Opr Behera.
There were at least 50 armed persons at the post within 100 meters of the site
of the incident and he could have ordered these troops to take action against
Gnr/Opr Behera. It is by his inaction that he has displayed cowardice and
these facts have been amply proved by the testimony of not only prosecution
witnesses but also the defence witnesses.
25. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the original record of the SGCM. There is no legal infirmity in the trial and
neither has the Petitioner been denied his legal rights. The evidence on
record clearly establishes that during the entire incident in which Lt. Col.
Saket Saxena was shot the Petitioner did not take any action to control the
situation. This was despite the fact that he was the second seniormost
person on the post after Subedar Paramjit Singh, and was also the Platoon
Commander of Gnr/Opr Suresh Chandra Behera who had shot Lt. Col. Saket
TA No. 168 of 2010 [W.P.(C) No.9777 of 2009] Page 22 of 23