The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar, while adjudicating a petition under Article 226 in terms of which the petitioner had called in question order dated 9th September 2004 passed by the respondents under Section 63 of the Army Act,1950, whereby the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of “severe reprimand”, held that Rule 26(1) of the Army Rules 1954 is mandatory and requirement of serving charge along with summary of evidence recorded under Rule 23 is indispensable.
The court also held that any infraction of this mandatory requirement would be in breach of principles of natural justice and infract seriously the fair trial rights of delinquent. The court observed, “non-compliance of this mandatory requirement cannot be justified on the ground that since the charged officer pleaded guilty to charge and, therefore, there was no prejudice caused to him”.
The court further observed that object of prescribing the mandatory requirement envisaged under Rule 26(1) is to provide a reasonable opportunity to the charged officer to reflect with cool mind, weigh calmly the pros and cons of pleading guilty or defending the charge, as the case may be. It held that conducting the summary proceedings hurriedly without adhering to the mandatory requirement envisaged under Rule 26(1) is itself an act prejudicial to the charged officer facing the proceedings and deprives him of making a conscious and informed choice and adequately prepare his defence should he decide to contest the charge.
The court as such allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order.