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has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 7th May, 2012, filed as Annexure A-22, whereby he has been withdrawn from ACC-98 Course from the Indian Military Academy.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.