After 22-year-old legal battle, turmoil ends for soldier | chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Feb 25, 2017-Saturday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

After 22-year-old legal battle, turmoil ends for soldier

chandigarh Updated: Nov 08, 2014 19:42 IST
Bhartesh Singh Thakur
Bhartesh Singh Thakur
Hindustan Times

Naik Prem Singh can now heave a sigh of relief. His 22-year-old legal battle ended on Friday as the Chandigarh bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) set aside his dismissal and granted him pensionary benefits.

Singh, a resident of Hoshiarpur, was enrolled in 1 Sikh Light Infantry (LI) in 1971. In 1989, he was posted in Sri Lanka as part of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in Pedro. He was the section commander of an LMG bunker. The bunker came under LTTE fire and while defending it along with three of his subordinates, the bunker was abandoned. The subsequent search revealed loss of the LMG rifle and other equipment.

Singh was served a chargesheet in 1990 for showing cowardice in face of enemy action. But the General Court Martial (GCM) held him not guilty. The findings of the court martial were not confirmed by General Officer Commanding, 54 Infantry Division. So, the GCM assembled again in 1991 and he was again acquitted.

Then he was served a showcause notice for loss of the LMG, on March 10, 1992, for taking action against him under Section 20 of the Army Act. Following this, he was dismissed from service on March 25, 1992.

He filed a petition in the Punjab and Haryana high court in 1992. The petition was then transferred to the Chandigarh bench of the AFT.

Arun Singla, counsel for Prem Singh, submitted that the soldier had retired on December 31, 1991, and he couldn’t be issued showcause notice and later dismissed as he was no longer in service.

The army submitted that his date of retirement was extended, but no concerned order was placed in the court.

The bench comprising justice Prakash Krishna and Air Marshal SC Mukul (retd) ruled, “A plain reading of section 20, particulalry sub-section (3) read with Rule 17 of the Army Rules would show that it contemplates a situation where the person whose dismissal or removal from service is sought for is in service. The opening sentence of section 20 (1) says “may dismiss or remove from service”. Necessarily it, therefore, excludes the dismissal or removal of a person who is no longer in service, as in the present case, having attained the age of superannuation earlier…we find sufficient force in the argument of the petitioner (Prem Singh) that the showcause notice and the impugned order could not have been passed against the petitioner who was already superannuated.”