OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -1-
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH AT CHANDIMANDIR -.- OA 3618 of 2012
Anil Kumar …… Petitioner(s) Vs Union of India and others …… Respondent(s) -.- For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. S L Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. Geeta Singhwal, Sr. PC for Resp Nos. 1 to 3. None for Resp No 4.
Coram: Justice Prakash Krishna, Judicial Member. Lt Gen (Retd) Sanjiv Chachra, Administrative Member -.- ORDER 18.02.2016 -.-
By means of present petition filed under Section 14 of the
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the petitioner who is still in service as Naik in the Indian Army, has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 7th May, 2012, filed as Annexure A-22, whereby he has been withdrawn from ACC-98 Course from the Indian Military
Academy. Furthermore, a sum of Rs.9,55,125/- has been sought to be recovered from him towards the cost of training and allied charges spent on him by the Academy.
2. The petitioner has come out with the case that he was selected for Commission as an officer in the Army and was undergoing military training in Indian Military Academy (IMA) and had already undergone the training for three years. According to him, he was unmarried but
OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -2-
during his training one lady falsely representing herself as wife of the petitioner, made a complaint against him. The petitioner was released / withdrawan from the training at the IMA on the false and frivolous ground of moral turpitude, courage, lacking of officer like qualities etc.
3. On the basis of the complaint by the lady, the matter was inquired into by the IMA authorities and a Court of Inquiry was ordered; to investigate into the circumstances under which No. 4607
Cdt Anil Kumar of Kargil Coy, Siachin Bn, ACC Wing,IMA accepted and subsequently denied his marriage with Ms Sarika, a resident of
House No. 68, Sant Nagar, Burari, New Delhi. The Court of Inquiry recorded the evidence of witnesses, including that of the complainant
(lady) as well as of the petitioner. On the basis of the report of the
Court of Inquiry, it appears that a show cause notice was given which was replied to by the petitioner and thereafter the impugned order has been passed. Challenging the legality and validity of the finding of the
Court of Inquiry and the procedure adopted by the respondents, which culminated in the impugned order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the allegations that he has not been treated fairly by the Army and IMA Authorities. There is total lack of evidence; that the petitioner ever married with the lady, namely, Ms Sarika Dwivedi.
There is no iota of evidence to prove his marriage with Ms.Sarika
Dwivedi. The alleged confession of marriage made by the petitioner is
OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -3-
not sufficient to hold that the petitioner is guilty of any charge or he lacks requisite qualities for becoming an Army Officer. Hence, the present petition.
4. In reply, the respondents have filed two sets of written statements. Earlier a short written statement questioning the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to entertain the present petition against the action of
Indian Military Academy was set out. However, the said point has been adjudicated upon finally against the respondents i.e. the end of the matter so far as the first written statement is concerned. Subsequently, a detailed written statement has been filed wherein order impugned in the present petition has been sought to be justified on the ground that the petitioner got married without seeking permission of the appropriate authority with Ms.Sarika Dwivedi on 4th December, 2010. He misled the IMA authorities by denying marriage with aforesaid lady.
Therefore, he showed lack of character and moral values. The petitioner has thus committed a grave offence unbecoming of a cadet and a future officer; therefore, he was rightly withdrawn from the training by the competent authority on disciplinary ground. He was awarded ten restrictions for willful defiance of orders dated 29.04.2011 as he married Ms Sarika without taking permission, which is contrary to existing orders and subsequent denial of his marriage with Ms.
Sarika, therefore the principle of double jeopardy is not applicable to the facts of the case. As per para 81( C) of ARTRAC Admn
OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -4-
Instructions, the recovery of cost of training and allied charges from the petitioner is perfectly justified. Not only that, he had furnished a bond before joining the training, which is binding on the petitioner for having failed to make the laid down standard of discipline and conduct as an Officer Cadet, is liable to defray the cost of expenditure incurred on him.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the present petition has raised the following four points for our consideration:
(1) The finding of the Court of Inquiry and its jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint are legally not sustainable as there is no evidence of marriage of the petitioner with Ms.Sarika; (2) The petitioner has been awarded two punishments; (i) Ten restrictions as per order dated 29th April, 2011 filed as Annexure A-15 and (ii) withdrawal of the petitioner from the training course for the same offence, if any; (3) The confession of the petitioner, if any, was not voluntarily recorded and the alleged statement of the petitioner is not a confession and if it is a confession, it was given by him under duress and threat and cannot be relied upon, and
OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -5-
(4) The quantum of punishment awarded to the cadet be commensurate with the gravity of the crime in line with the special discipline standards that are laid down for potential officers of the Army by the Training Institutions.
7. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. It would be useful to first notice the chain of events which have taken place. The petitioner, a serving soldier, was selected for training to become an officer in the ACC wing of the Indian Military Academy,
Dehradun. When he was in his Vth term, the parents of the petitioner visited the Academy on 28th March, 2011. They met Col A Bevli, Bn
Cdr Bhagat Bn and told them that some girl has been troubling the petitioner by making fake calls to him and she is black-mailing him to marry her. Thereafter, the matter was inquired into by Capt VC Tewari, who met the petitioner‟s parents and they narrated the story to him.
When they contacted the petitioner Anil Kumar, he gave them a different story and accepted that he got married with lady „Sarika‟ on
4th December, 2010 at Dehradun without his parents‟ consent. The marriage was performed at Sai Baba Temple. None of the family members were present at the time of marriage but a few course-mates were present at the time of marriage.
OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -6-
9. The petitioner was then given counseling by the IMA authorities and was advised to sort out the matter expeditiously. The petitioner had informed his officers that his parents were not agreeable to the said marriage. Meaning thereby, at that point of time the petitioner accepted his marriage with lady Sarika. Subsequently, in the first week of April
2011, the lady Sarika sent a letter with seven marriage photographs and a marriage certificate issued from Sri Sai Baba Dev Sthanam as proof of her marriage with petitioner and complained of his indifferent behavior with her. She expressed apprehension that the petitioner may get married to another girl. On receipt of the said letter, it appears that the College Administration contacted the petitioner and he was counseled and advised by Major Deepak Sharma to patch up the matter.
The petitioner was also awarded disciplinary punishment of ten restrictions for not obtaining prior permission for marriage from IMA authorities as per laid down rules. The petitioner initially stated that he is still trying to persuade his parents to accept his marriage with Sarika.
It appears that he was unable to persuade his parents. Thereafter, he virtually took a U-turn by denying the said marriage with Sarika and came out with the case that he only knew Sarika for the last about four years. They are good friends but denied that they were actually married.
10. Indian Military Academy, Dehradun constituted a Court of
Inquiry for the purpose of “to investigate into the circumstances under
OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -7-
which No. 4607 Cdt Anil Kumar of Kargil Coy, Siachin Bn, ACC
Wing IMA accepted and subsequently denied his marriage with Ms
Sarika, a resident of House No. 68, Sant Nagar, Burari, New Delhi”.
11. The Court of Inquiry examined Maj Deepak Sharma as witness
No.1, Col GS Gill, Bn Cdr, Siachen Bn as witness No.2, Sarika was herself examined as Witness No.3, Cdts YB Singh, Prabhat Singh and
Satendra Kumar all of Kargil Coy as Witness Nos. 4,5 and 6 and Cdt
Anil Kumar (petitioner) as Witness No.7. Witness Nos. 1 and 2 have narrated the entire incident i.e. the complaint made by the petitioner‟s parents about black-mailing their son to marry. Maj Deepak Sharma
(Witness No.1) stated that on inquiry from the petitioner, the petitioner accepted that he married Sarika on 4th December, 2010 at Dehradun, without his parents‟ consent, in presence of few course mates at Sai
Baba Temple. He was counseled and verbally advised to resolve the issue at his own end and do the needful since he had already married
Sarika. He was given a special counseling through (Exhibit-1) which is reproduced below for the sake of convenience:
“1. Cadet Anil Kumar, after interacting with your parents on 28th March, 2011 and also referring to your statement (att), it has come to the notice of the Coy Officer that you married Miss Sarika during this term break at Sai Baba Mandir Dehradun, without prior permission/intimating your pl/Coy cdr.
2. Also, when interviewed by coy cdr, you initially declined to have married the a/m girl . You have also met her during non-visiting hrs while undergoing trg at Sia Bn on 27th March, 2011.
OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -8-
3. The above incident has also been a cause of bother for your parents . It is advised, that this being a thoroughly personal matter, you must resolve it at your end as soon as possible failing which you shall be liable to strict disciplinary action.”
On similar lines, witness No.2 Col GS Gill , Bn Cdr, Siachen Bn, also deposed and stated that he also advised Cadet Anil Kumar verbally in detail and advised him to resolve the issue. He also stated that Cadet
Anil Kumar had accepted his marriage with Sarika on 4th December,
2010 ie during the course of Pre-Commissioning Training.
12. Ms Sarika Dwivedi in her statement has stated that the marriage was performed on 4th December, 2010 at Sai Mandir, Rajpur Road.
After marriage they went around in Dehradun where she met with Cdts
Arun, Rahul Panwar and Bhati to whom the petitioner introduced her as his course-mates. Thereafter they went to Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine and on 11th December, 2010, she returned to her home in Delhi. In
March, 2011 when she came to Dehradun, she found that the attitude of the petitioner was cold and he was refuting the marriage. She started staying in Panditwari in a rented accommodation, payment of which was made by the petitioner. She further stated that she tried to reconcile with the petitioner as he agreed to get marriage certificate within six weeks. She had already registered a case with Women Cell
Dehradun and informed the Army. The other witnesses ie, course mates
OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -9-
of the petitioner who were present at the time of marriage, as is evident from the photographs of the marriage, have stated that they were invited to witness the marriage on 4th December, 2010 and they congratulated the petitioner after marriage and a group photograph was also taken. The ritual formalities were conducted and they witnessed the entire ceremony being conducted like a proper marriage. The petitioner had distributed sweets to his course-mates in the Academy class and declared that he had got married.
13. On the basis of statements of the witnesses and the documents produced by them, the Court of Inquiry recorded in the findings that
Cadet Anil Kumar of Kargil Coy, Siachin Bn, IMA had close friendly relationship with Sarika and with the passage of time both came closer, had physical relationship during that period and got married on 4th
December, 2010, at Sai Baba Mandir and thereafter getting married the couple visited the holy shrine of Vaishno Devi to seek blessings for their happy married life. On his return, during the subsequent term, Cdt
Anil Kumar distributed sweets among all his course-mates announcing that he had got married with Ms. Sarika. Cdt Anil Kumar had physical relations/contacts with Sarika throughout their liaison and since she was co-located, they had a regular interaction and the lady had also conceived. The Cdt confirmed this during his interview and counseling that the girl was pregnant with his child. Since the parents of Cdt Anil
OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -10-
Kumar were not agreeable with him on the matter, he saw no way but to repudiate the marriage with lady Sarika. The petitioner was counseled a number of times for accepting the marriage relations by his superior officers and to resolve the issue at his own but the petitioner failed. The Court of Inquiry ultimately concluded that, by examining the witnesses and documentary proofs produced by the lady, it is evident that a marriage did take place as per Hindu Rites between the petitioner and Sarika and the claims of the girl here true and that the cadet has tried to mislead the authorities.
14. Furthermore, the petitioner was found guilty of giving false statement by denying his marriage with Sarika and this act of the petitioner warranted disciplinary action. The opinion of the Court of
Inquiry is reproduced below for the sake of convenience:
“ OPINION OF THE COURT ON THE COURT OF INQUIRY INVESTIGATING INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH NO.4607 CDT ANIL KUMAR OF KARGIL COY, SIA BN, ACCEPTED AND SUBSEQUENTLY DENIED HIS MARRIAGE WITH MRS SARIKA, A RESIDENT OF NEW DELHI.
1. Having examined the witnesses and the documentary evidence, the Court is of the opinion that Cdt Anil Kumar wed Ms Sarika on 04 Dec 2010 at Sai Baba Mandir, Rajpur road in the presence of other Cdts as per Hindu rites and having impregnated the lady, completely denies the marriage. 2. Cdt Anil Kumar is guilty of giving false statements by denying his marriage to Ms.Sarika and this act of the Cdt warrants disciplinary action.”
OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -11-
15. On the findings of the Court of Inquiry, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner on 25th January, 2012. The show cause notice alluded to the following serious lapses on the part of the cadet:-
a) Not possessing basic officer like qualities of honesty, truthfulness, moral courage, loyalty integrity and respect for women; b) Breach of two basic tenets of Academy Honour Code, that is, lying and cheating; c) Lying to superior, dishonesty and unconscienteous attitude.
16. The reply to the show cause notice as given by the petitioner, is reproduced below:
“1.Kindly ref to your letter No. 4891 /Adjt 25 Jan 2012 at 1430 hrs with dirn to submit reply by 27st Jan, 2012.
2.At the outset, I respectfully submit that the allegations made against me in the show cause notice are not correct and I deny each one of them singularly and collectively. It seems that despite the matter having been finally put to the rest by the complainant as well as her father, there is some apprehension /doubt about the entire episode. It may kindly be appreciated that with the positive statement of the complainant and her father in my favour, no allegation against me survives and the matter ought to have been closed.
3. I respectfully make the following submissions with regard to the allegations made against me in the show cause notice for your kind consideration:
a) Miss Sarika Dwivedi and I were friends and not a married couple. On my turning down her proposal for marriage she got annoyed and resorted to pressurize me to accept her marriage proposal. I have already explained the reasons/circumstances of my first statement (acceptance
OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -12-
of marriage) to the authorities in person and also in my statement in the Honour Code Committee on 13th Jan 2012. In this connection I humbly request your kind honour to kindly refer to para 1(a) to (1) of Miss Sarika Dwivedi‟s letter No. SD/pers-02 dated 10th Nov 2011.(signed) in witness of her father Mr.Ramesh Dwivedi)and also her email letter dated 04 Nov 11, scanned copy of which has already been submitted. b) I have truthfully and honestly intimated the authorities that I am unmarried and Miss Sarika Dwivedi and I were only friends. Miss Sarika Dwivedi has also stated on affidavit that she is unmarried (affidavit also submitted to the authorities). Mr.Ramesh Dwivedi has also on affidavit stated that his daughter is unmarried. c) There was no marriage promise between me and Miss Sarika Dwivedi. By rejecting her marriage proposal I have neither cheated her nor shown any disrespect to any woman. d) After my first statement (under circumstances/reasons already explained) I honestly with course informed the truth in my subsequent statements and in Honour Code Committee meeting on 13 Jan 2012 that I am unmarried. The truth of my statement has also been confirmed by the girl and her father in their letters and affidavits (already submitted to authorities). 4. I respectfully submit to your kind honour that I have been truthful, honest and respectful to the women. I have always held the basic tenants of the Academy at high esteem. In view of the above, I respectfully submit to close the matter once for all. I assure you, Sir, that I hold the officer like qualities like integrity, loyalty, truthfulness and devotion to duty as the highest values of my life and would never found wanting. As the complainant has already withdrawn her complaint, it is well established that she was trying to pressurize me resulting into the entire unfortunate episode. I have suffered enough due to my indiscretion and I pray that now I may be cleared of allegation made in the complaint.”
17. On the basis of the above show cause notice and the aforesaid reply, impugned action was initiated on the petitioner and he was charge-sheeted for violation of Academy Honour Code and lack of
Officer Like Qualities.
OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -13-
18. Having noticed the chain of events, we may now examine the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was vehemently argued that, as a matter of fact, no marriage with Sarika took place as per provisions of Hindu Marriage Act. Elaborating the argument, it was submitted that subsequently Sarika has withdrawn her complaint and come out with the case that her statement before the
Court of Inquiry was not correctly recorded. It was also brought to our notice that much after the said incident, the petitioner too has got married and the marriage has been accepted by the Army authorities as
Part-II order for the same has been issued. The sum and substance of the argument by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is a case of „double jeopardy‟, as the petitioner was earlier awarded punishment of ten restrictions and, subsequently, he has been withdrawn from the
Indian Military Academy. His argument proceeds on the footing as if the petitioner was tried for an offence committed within the meaning of
Army Act. Elaborating further on the argument, it was submitted that the Indian Military Academy has proceeded in the case with a wrong angle inasmuch the petitioner had not yet become „an officer‟ and therefore there is no question of lacking in officer like qualities in him.
He was in the process of becoming of an officer and until and unless that stage is reached, it would be incorrect to say that the individual lacks officer like qualities.
OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -14-
19. With this background, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and are of the view that all these submissions are misconceived as they proceed on the footing as if it is a case of committing a crime, which it is not so. Here is a case where the Indian
Military Academy considered the action of the petitioner (firstly accepting the marriage after denying it) as gross indiscipline and serious violation of the Honour Code. The impugned action therefore needs to be considered in that perception. It could not be disputed and was not disputed that a trainee from the academy can be withdrawn as per guidelines and bye-laws made by the IMA on many grounds, including that on disciplinary grounds, depending upon the merits of the case.
20. Indian Military Academy is a premier institution of the country that has been established for training and grooming gentlemen cadets to become potential officers in conformity with the historical, cultural and soldierly values of the Indian Army and the Nation. To understand this in the correct perspective, we have studied the IMA‟s Mission, Core
Objectives, Warrior Code, Honour Code of the Indian Military
Academy which are codified and reproduced here for reference:-
OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -15-
“Mission In keeping with the warrior code, progressively train future military leaders in operational and administrative skills at subunit level, to be capable of combating contemporary conflict realities.
Core Objectives Strive to build in each GC exemplary conduct, inspire competence and passionate commitment with an uncompromising character.
Warrior Code “I am a warrior, fighting is my dharma I will train my mind, body and spirit to fight I will excel in all devices and weapons of war Present and future I will always protect the weak I will be truthful to bluntness I will be humane, cultured and compassionate I will fight and embrace all consequences thereof God give me strength that I ask nothing of you”
Honour Code „I shall not lie, steal or cheat nor tolerate those who do so‟.
Only a man of character can have good conduct, competence or commitment. Therefore, at IMA the core objective of character is probably the most important. The honour code though apparently negative, has a very direct and unambiguous definition. However, it is the latter part which demands moral courage. It is only the principled who through their courage help build a moral environment:-
a) Morals define intention, judgment & action
b) Values are caught and set stds that build a legacy
c) Ethics are inviolate functional guidelines.
d) Ethics therefore needs enforcement.
e) A leader with convenient values can‟t enforce ethics.
f) Man‟s character in peace assures courage in war.
g) Morality and restraint are necessary for a moral command
environment.
h) The Army is mandated for ethical use of force.
i) Army ethos is based on national and service values, accepted
codes and conventions.
OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -16-
21. In addition, grave /serious offences have been defined which constitute serious or grave acts of indiscipline and which will invite award of punishment resulting in withdrawal or relegation. They are as follows:
(a) Violation of the Academy Honour Code. (b) Violation of Academy Standing Orders. (c) Absence without leave in two or more occasions. However, if absence is more than five days on any occasion, the GC will be relegated, intent and circumstances will be considered. (d) Stealing or theft. (e) Fraud, forgery, financial irregularity or misappropriation of any kind. (f) Attempted suicide, malingering or any other civil offence as classified within mil rules. (g) Willful disobedience of orders, misbehavior with staff, insubordination or obstruction. (h) Possession of wpns of any kind or amu other than that auth for trg in trg areas only. (i) Loss of controlled stores or willful damage to Govt. property. (j) Possession or consumption of drugs and liquor or pedaling the same. (k) Use of unfair means during exams or trg events. (l) Ragging, ill-treating, humiliating or manhandling a GC. (m) Offences against women, children, moral turpitude or any act of indecent kind. (n) Assault of affray within and outside the Academy. (o) Any act prejudicial to image of the Academy,. (p) Violation of security or adm orders and passing of classified infor or trg material to unauth pers incl press.
22. Given the core objectives, mission, Honour Code and the unique standards that the Indian Army and IMA has set for themselves, it is no mean achievement that they have produced officers and leaders who have protected and upheld the territorial integrity of the Nation at grave risks, even at the cost of their lives. Numerous shining examples have etched their names in golden letters in the history of independent India and the Army. The heroes of Kargil and the recent leadership at
OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -17-
Siachin are just some examples. It would not be out of place to recount the Chetwode Motto that is inscribed on the walls of IMA and what remains a guiding principle for army officers for the rest of their lives.
“The Safety, Honour and Welfare of your country comes first, always and every time, The Honour, Welfare and Comfort of the men you command come next, Your own ease, comfort and safety comes last, always and every time.”
Driven by this Chetwode Credo, Indian Military leaders during their active service career face numerous challenges in extremely difficult and hostile situations. Irrespective of the challenges including risk of life, they carry out their task with unflinching commitment and selfless devotion to duty.
23. With this backdrop, we now proceed further in the case. The petitioner‟s argument that subsequently Ms Sarika withdrew her allegations and therefore, such an impugned order should be set aside is misconceived. The crux of the matter is the conduct of the petitioner which needs to be seen in the backdrop of the IMA‟s Code of Conduct and Discipline standard. He spoke a lie with regard to his marriage with the lady. At no stage has he come forward to say that he never accepted
OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -18-
the marriage with the lady Sarika. He has pleaded guilty against the charge.
24. The high standard of the Indian Army is moral character, personal behavior and impeccable conduct which is ingrained in the cadet / students of IMA during their training period. The Indian Army is known for its high standard, morals, values and discipline. A bare perusal of the pleadings of the petitioner would show that he has not disputed his statements given to his superior that he had accepted his marriage with Sarika earlier. It is also not disputed by him that earlier he thought that he would be able to persuade his parents to accept the marriage with Sarika but he failed. Here the question of legality of marriage with Sarika is not so important. Here the question is of truthfulness and gentleman‟s words. The petitioner whether he acted as a gentleman to his friend Sarika is the relevant consideration to find out whether he could prove in future to be an officer of Indian Army standards. The Warrior Code also reproduced above provides that “ I will always protect the weak, I will be truthful to bluntness…………..” The Indian Military Academy judges the acts and deeds of the individual on the touchstone of the Warrior Code and found that the petitioner is a man of weak mind who could not stand up to his promise. He spoke a lie with regard to his marriage, thus failed to abide by „Honour Code.‟
OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -19-
25. The present case is one of a disciplinary matter and in such matters, the scope of judicial interference is very very limited. What action should be taken by the disciplinary authority lies in the realm of the discipline enforcement authority. It is an acknowledged legal proposition that when there is no allegation of mala fide, the opinion given by experts should be respected. The disciplinary authorities at
Indian Military Academy reached to the conclusion that the petitioner has breached the Honour Code by telling a lie. They gave a show cause notice to the petitioner and after following the principles of natural justice, have reached to their conclusion. They have examined the matter in detail and have not taken the decision in haste. A number of counseling, oral as well as in writing, were provided to the petitioner to sort out the matter at his own end, instead, he could not bear the pressure of his parents and later on denied the marriage with Sarika.
This has been considered gross indiscipline by the Indian Military
Academy which cannot be faulted on the facts and circumstances of the case. In this context, we may reproduce a paragraph from the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and another v. Talwinder Singh
[2012] 5 Supreme Court Cases 480:
“In Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity (2010) 3 SCC 732 this Court while placing reliance upon a large number of earlier judgments including the Constitution Bench judgment in University of Mysore v. C.D.Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC
OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -20-
491 held that ordinarily, the Court should not interfere with the order based on opinion of experts on the subject. It would be safe for the Courts to leave the decision to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be.”
26. The plea of „double jeopardy‟ raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly misconceived and is meritless. The ten restrictions of punishment were given to the petitioner as he got married with Sarika without taking prior permission or informing the authorities concerned as per laid down rules. The order impugned in the petition has been passed on a different ground i.e. violation of
Academy Honour Code and lack of officer like qualities. None of the so-called punishment orders were passed by a Tribunal or a Court.
These two orders were passed to maintain the standard of discipline in the Academy. The question that Sarika subsequently gave her affidavit that she has filed a complaint on wrong allegations or she wants to withdraw the complaint etc, are all by way of an afterthought and are irrelevant to the crucial reason given in the impugned order. We, therefore, feel that there is no need for us to interfere with the impugned order of “withdrawn from the Academy and reverted to parent unit”.
27. Before concluding the case, we may take note of one more aspect. The parents of the petitioner by making a complaint that their son, the petitioner, is being „blackmailed‟ by a lady to marry her,
OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -21-
started the ball rolling. On inquiry and investigation by the IMA, the petitioner, as seen above, gave entirely a different picture that he is married with the lady Sarika, against the wishes of his parents.
Subsequently, he shifted from his original stand due to persistent pressure from his parents. Faced with this situation, Sarika withdrew all her allegations with regard to the marriage, obviously to save the skin and career of the petitioner. She with a brave heart has come forward with an attitude of „forgiveness‟ „forget the past and „let go‟. This is despite the fact that the father of the petitioner had leveled serious allegations and cast aspersions on the character of this lady. Spirituality and almost all religion on earth teaches these lessons. In real life, such instances are rare and exceptional. Sarika deserves all appreciation for her exemplary personality.
28. By the impugned order in the petition, the respondents are seeking recovery of the cost of training and allied charges amounting to
Rs.9,55,125/-. The petitioner is still serving in the Indian Army, may be not be as an officer but training given to him has made value addition to the personality of the petitioner. Ultimately, the Army is gainer. We are of the view that it would be inappropriate to recover the said amount from the petitioner, particularly in the circumstances of the case. We, therefore, set aside the said part of the order demanding a sum of Rs.9,55,125/- from the petitioner. By way of clarification, it
OA No. 3618 of 2012 [Anil Kumar v. UOI & Ors] -22-
may be added that no amount is recoverable on account of cost of training and allied charges from the petitioner.
29. In the result, the petition is allowed in part as indicated above.
(Justice Prakash Krishna)
(Lt Gen (Retd) Sanjiv Chachra)
18.02.2016 raghav
Whether the judgment for reference is to be put on internet? Yes / No.