Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rinku Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 May, 2026
2026:CHC-AS:784
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present :-
The Hon'ble Justice PARTHA SARATHI SEN
WPA 6605 OF 2025
RINKU SINGH
-Vs-
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
For the Petitioner: Ms. Manika Roy, Adv.,
Mr. Atanu Sur, Adv.
For the Union of India: Mr. Brajesh Jha, Adv.,
Mr. Rameshwar Sinha, Adv.
Hearing concluded on: 15.05.2026
Judgment on: 20.05.2026
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. : -
1. The subject matter of the instant writ petition is the order dated
09.12.2024 being the order of punishment as imposed by the respondent
authorities upon the writ petitioner, the order of the reviewing authority dated
13.02.2024 under Section 163 of the Navy Act, 1957 hereinafter referred to as
the "said Act" in short and the order dated 24.07.2024 as passed by the Armed
Forces Tribunal, Regional bench, Kolkata in OA No. 119 of 2024. By the
impugned order dated 09.12.2024 the respondent authorities dismissed the
writ petitioner from naval service along with deprivation of Third, Second and
Page 1 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
First GCB. By the impugned order dated 13.02.2024 as passed by the
reviewing authority under Section 163 of the said Act, the competent authority
while allowing the review petition of the writ petitioner set aside the trial
proceeding and punishment order dated 20.02.2023 with a direction to retry
the writ petitioner in accordance with the said Act. By the impugned order
dated 24.07.2024 the said Tribunal in OA No. 119 of 2024 recorded a finding
that retrial of the writ petitioner was completed and thus, recorded that
appropriate orders including qua grant of interim relief as prayed for in the said
original application would be considered on the next date. In the instant writ
petition the writ petitioner apart from the aforementioned three reliefs has also
prayed for other consequential and ancillary reliefs including the prayer to
allow him to join the Naval Service with full back wages and consequential
benefits including promotions as per his counterpart or batchmate of A131
Class.
2. At the time of hearing Ms. Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page no.
42 of the instant writ petition (Annexure A-1). It is submitted that from
Annexure A-1 it would reveal that the writ petitioner was charged under three
heads for allegedly committing offences punishable under Section(s) 60(a)/
47(c)/ 74 of the said Act. It is submitted by Ms. Roy that on perusal of page no.
55 (Annexure A-3) of the writ petition it would reveal that after conclusion of
the summary trial in respect of the aforementioned three alleged offences, the
respondent authorities by its memo dated 20.02.2023 imposed the following
Page 2 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
punishments namely: (i) Stoppage of leave: 60 days, (ii) Reprimand by Captain,
(iii) Reduction in rank: EA(R) 4 and (iv) Deprivation of GCB: Second and First.
3. It is submitted further on behalf of the writ petitioner that on perusal of
page no. 61 of the instant writ petition (Annexure A-5) it would reveal that by
an order dated 13.02.2024 the reviewing authority while disposing the review
petition under Section 163 of the said Act though set aside the said summary
trial proceeding as well as the punishments however directed for retrial of the
writ petitioner in accordance with the said Act. In her next limb of submission
it is further argued by Ms. Roy that though the reviewing authority set aside
the punishments dated 20.02.2023 of the writ petitioner, however the
respondent authorities did not restore the writ petitioner to his original position
prior to initiation of retrial proceeding as would be evident from page no. 48 of
the supplementary affidavit being a copy of staff minute sheet dated
18.03.2024 and as a result, whereof the writ petitioner had to suffer the
punishments as imposed upon him vide memo dated 20.02.2023 and thus, the
punishments as awarded by the respondent authorities in the retrial
proceeding vide memo dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure P-29) (page no. 143 of the
supplementary affidavit) tantamount to "double jeopardy" and thus, a valuable
constitutional right of the writ petitioner as enshrined in Article 20(2) of the
Constitution of India is violated and on this ground alone, the instant writ
petition may be allowed by granting the reliefs to the writ petitioner as prayed
for.
Page 3 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
4. Drawing attention to the different provisions of Navy (Discipline and
Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations, 1965 ('Regulations' in short), it is
argued by Ms. Roy that the Regulations 22 to 33 which come under Section II-
Investigation of the said Regulations, postulates investigation of departmental
offences by the Departmental Officer or divisional officer and in case the said
Departmental or Divisional Officer decides not to deal with the case by himself
or themselves, by the Executive Officer and in case the Executive Officer
decided not to deal with the case himself, by the commanding officer.
5. Drawing attention to page no. 50 of the instant writ petition vis-Ã -vis page
no. 54 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the writ petitioner, it is submitted
by Ms. Roy that on comparative study of the said two documents, it would
reveal that in the first round of departmental proceeding, the enquiry was
conducted by one, Sri Joydeep Chakraborty, the then Executive Officer of the
department and after order of retrial in the aforementioned review, the self
same person held the retrial proceeding against the writ petitioner. It is thus
submitted that it is the specific case of the writ petitioner that subsequent
retrial proceeding is vitiated by "Doctrine of Bias" in view of the fact that the self
same person who conducted departmental proceeding against the writ
petitioner in the first round, conducted the retrial proceeding by himself.
6. Drawing further attention to page nos. 49 and 54 of the supplementary
affidavit it is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that on comparative
study of the aforementioned two documents, it would reveal that on
04.04.2024 the aforementioned Executive Officer issued a memo to the
Page 4 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
Commanding Officer, INS, Delhi requesting him to reinstate the writ petitioner
to his original rank prior to deputing the writ petitioner to his unit for
conducting retrial, however, from page no. 49 of the supplementary affidavit it
would reveal that the respondent authorities transferred the writ petitioner to
INS, Netaji Subhash on TY duty for retrial of summary trial, and thus, the
reinstatement of rank of the writ petitioner was never given effect to and
further it would reveal that retrial proceeding of the writ petitioner was
practically initiated on 19.03.2024 that is much prior to 04.04.2024 when
formalities with regard to retrial was under process which caused serious
miscarriage of justice.
7. In course of her argument Ms. Roy draws attention of this Court to Section
163 of the said Act. Attention of this Court is also drawn to page no. 61 of the
writ petition being a copy of of the order dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure A-5)
whereby and whereunder one, Sri K.P. Sreesan, Captain, Capt (PS) though set
aside the trial proceeding against the writ petitioner and the punishments
awarded to the petitioner in the first round, however, ordered for retrial of the
writ petitioner herein. It is submitted that Section 163 of the said Act clearly
mandates that an order for retrial can be given either by the Central
Government or the Chief of the Naval Staff. However, in the case in hand, it
would reveal that such order for retrial dated 13.02.2024 was passed by a
Captain who is much below the rank of the Chief of Naval Staff and therefore,
while issuing the order for retrial dated 13.02.2024 the said Captain exercised
Page 5 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
his power which is not vested to him under the law and thus, the said order for
retrial is basically a nullity.
8. Ms. Roy further submits that from page nos. 38 and 39 of the
supplementary affidavit (Annexure P-13) being a copy of the punishment
warrant form dated 20.02.2023, it would reveal that the respondent authorities
in the first round found the writ petitioner guilty under Section(s) 60(a)/ 47(c)/
74 of the said Act. However, after being ordered for retrial, one letter dated
25.06.2024 (page no. 103 of the supplementary affidavit) was issued by the
Captain, Commanding Officer (AOD) appointing Lieutenant Saurav (10218-Y)
as 'Defending Officer' in respect of a proceeding against the writ petitioner
under Regulation 235(2) of REGS Navy Part II which are punishable under
Section(s) 68/ 74/ 68/ 60 of the said Act. It is thus submitted by Ms. Roy that
on comparative study of the above said two documents it is palpably clear that
in the retrial proceeding charges were altered and/or escalated though in the
order for retrial dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure A-5 of the writ petition at page no.
61) no order was passed for retrial of the writ petitioner upon alteration and/or
escalation of charges.
9. At this juncture, Ms. Roy took me to page nos. 8, 13, 20 and 21 of the
supplementary affidavit dated 07.05.2025. It is submitted that it is the specific
pleading of the writ petitioner that in the retrial proceeding no document
including altered charge-sheet was supplied to him despite issuance of several
letters except genform and thus, the respondent authorities failed to observe
the principle of natural justice in the retrial proceeding against the writ
Page 6 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
petitioner and for that reason the entire retrial proceeding including the
punishment as imposed therein upon the writ petitioner was vitiated.
10. Drawing attention to page no. 105 of the supplementary affidavit
(Annexure P-24) being a copy of show-cause notice dated 27.06.2024 as issued
to the writ petitioner, it is submitted by Ms. Roy that such show-cause notice
was restricted to Section 68 of the said Act only, however, on perusal of the
copy of the punishment warrant form at page nos. 143 and 144 of the
supplementary affidavit (Annexure P-29) it would reveal that the respondent
authorities conducted retrial of the writ petitioner under Section(s) 60(a)/
47(c)/ 60(a)/ 47(A) of the said Act which tantamounts to miscarriage of justice.
11. In the course of her submission Ms. Roy again draws attention of this
Court to page no. 103 of the supplementary affidavit being a copy of the letter
dated 25.06.2024 whereby one Lieutenant Saurav was appointed as Defending
Officer vis-Ã -vis page no. 105 of the self-same supplementary affidavit
(Annexure P-24) being a copy of the show-cause notice dated 27.06.2024 as
issued to the writ petitioner. It is submitted that on comparative study of the
aforesaid two letters dated 25.06.2024 and 27.06.2024, it would reveal again
that prior to issuance of show-cause notice against the writ petitioner, a
Defending Officer has been appointed which clearly indicates that the
respondent authorities are not impartial and on the contrary they were
determined to impose punishment upon the writ petitioner.
Page 7 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
12. It is thus submitted that on account of such procedural irregularity and
biasness of the respondent authorities, the writ petitioner is entitled to the
reliefs as prayed for in the instant writ petition.
13. Drawing attention to page nos. 128, 41, 74, 78 and 91 of the
supplementary affidavit, Ms. Roy submits further before this Court that on
perusal of the aforesaid series of papers it would reveal that despite issuance of
several letters by the writ petitioner requesting the respondent authorities to
provide all papers and documents for retrial, such request was never adhered
to and on the contrary by issuing the memo dated 03.03.2023 (Annexure P-14)
of the supplementary affidavit at page no. 41, the writ petitioner was informed
that in absence of any specific provision in Indian Navy, the copy of the
summary trial proceeding cannot be provided to the aggrieved person who is
willing to challenge such proceeding in higher forum and thus, the very basic
principle of natural justice has been violated at the instance of the respondent
authorities.
14. In course of her submission Ms. Roy further places her reliance on
Section 93 of the said Act as well as Regulation 15 of the said Regulations. It is
submitted by Ms. Roy that the aforementioned two provisions clearly mandate
that no order of dismissal would be carried into effect until approved by the
prescribed authorities that is the Chief of the Naval Staff. It is further
submitted that from the impugned order of punishment dated 09.12.2024 it
would reveal further that prior to imposition of punishments of dismissal from
the Naval Service, the approval of the Chief of the Naval Staff was not taken.
Page 8 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
15. In her next limb of submission Ms. Roy submitted that Regulation 13 of
the said Regulations shall have got no application in case of an Artificer
apprentices and thus, the writ petitioner being an Electrical Artificer (Radio),
Third Class cannot be punished in terms of Regulation 13 of the said
Regulations.
16. In course of her argument Ms. Roy places her reliance upon the following
reported decisions:
(i) Biecco Lawrie Limited & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.
reported in (2009) 10 SCC 32,
(ii) The Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. vs.
The Union of India & Anr. reported in (1976) 2 SCC 981,
(iii) S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India reported in (1990) 4 SCC 594,
(iv) Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (1978)
1 SCC 248,
(v) Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner,
New Delhi & Ors. reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405,
(vi) Anita Kushwaha vs. Pushap Sudan reported in (2016) 8 SCC 509,
(vii) Judgment dated 11.01.2022 as passed in WP No. 28777 of 2017 (V.
Kumar vs. The Deputy Commissioner (Works), Greater Chennai
Corporation, Chennai) as passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Madras,
(viii) Balai Chandra Singha Roy vs. Union of India reported in 1983
SCC OnLine Cal 134,
Page 9 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
(ix) Raj Kumar M.E.-1 vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in ILR (2012)
V Delhi 599.
17. Ms. Roy thus submits that it is a fit case for allowing the instant writ
petition by granting the reliefs as prayed for.
18. At the time of his argument Mr. Jha duly assisted by Mr. Sinha Learned
Advocates for the respondents authorities filed two numbers of file relating to
review petition filed by the writ petitioner and the file leading to punishment
warrant as issued in the name of the Writ petitioner by the respondent
authorities after giving due inspection to Ms. Roy, Learned Advocate for the
writ petitioner in terms of the order dated 30.04.2026 as has been also
recorded in the order dated 15.05.2026.
19. Mr. Jha at the very outset draws attention of this court to Section 163
and 93 of the said Act. Attention of this court is also drawn to regulation 7, 13,
15, 22 to 27 of the said Regulations. At this juncture Mr. Jha took this Court to
page no. 61 of the Writ Petition being a copy of the memo dated 13.02.2024 as
issued by the Captain, Capt (PS), a copy of which has also been annexed at
page no. 109 of the supplementary affidavit as filed by the writ petitioner.
20. Drawing attention to the original file relating to review petition as
submitted by the respondents authorities, it is submitted by Mr. Jha that from
the said original file it would reveal that the Chief of Naval Staff (CNS in short)
has reviewed the matter personally and in terms of the provisions of section
163 of the said Act quashed the earlier summary proceeding as conducted
against the writ petitioner at INS Netaji Subhas and directed for retrial with
Page 10 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
regard to the alleged offences committed by the writ petition. It is submitted
that the said memo dated 13.02.2024 is merely a communication of the CNS as
has been communicated by his subordinate i.e. the Captain. It is argued by Mr.
Jha that it is preposterous to suggest that an authority not competent to
entertain the review petition of the writ petitioner has passed an order for
retrial under Section 163 of the said Act.
21. In his next limb of submission, Mr. Jha draws attention of this Court to
Section 93 (2) of the said Act vis-Ã -vis regulation 7, 13 and 15 of the said
Regulations. It is argued by Mr. Jha that Section 93 (2) of the said Act
prescribes for summary trial for an offence which is not Capital as committed
by a person other than an officer by the commanding officer of the ship to
which the offender belongs either at the time of the commission or of the trial
of the offence subject to condition that no sentence of imprisonment or
dismissal for service shall be carried into effect until approved by the
prescribed authorities. It is further submitted by Mr. Jha the Regulation 7
deals with the power of punishment of commanding officer, Regulation 13 deals
with the nature of punishment as may be awarded in a summary proceeding
and Regulation 15 deals with the punishments requiring approval of the
superior authority.
22. At this juncture attention of this court is further drawn to different pages
of the file relating to punishment warrant in respect of the writ petitioner. It is
submitted that from the different papers of the said file as well as from the
note-sheet of the said file it would reveal that in the retrial proceeding which
Page 11 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
has been tried summarily, the concerned commander imposed the punishment
of dismissal from the Naval Service and deprivation of third, second and first
good conduct badges which have been duly approved by the CNS on
28.11.2024 in compliance of the provision of Section 163 of the said Act as well
as in terms of the Regulations 7, 13 and 15 of the said Regulations. It is thus
submitted that there occurred no procedural irregularity in imposing the above
punishments upon the writ petitioner and thus there is hardly any scope to
interfere with the same in a judicial review.
23. In course of his argument Mr. Jha took this Court to Regulation 22 to 27
of the said Regulations under Section II- Investigation. He draws attention of
this court to the Investigation in terms of Regulation 22(1) of the said
Regulation in respect of offences under Section 60 (a)/47(c) of the said Act as
allegedly committed by the writ petitioner on 22.12.2022 and 19.01.2023 and
pursuant to the decision of the said IO the matter was 'held over'/forwarded to
the Executive Officer under Regulation 22(2) of the said Regulations.
24. Attention of this court is further drawn to the investigation conducted by
the IO in relation to subsequent two offences as allegedly committed by the writ
petitioner on 21.06.2024 under Sections 68/74 of the said Act wherein the
Investigating Officer though found the charges have been duly proved but the
punishment prescribed therefore was/were beyond his power and accordingly,
he forwarded the case to the Executive Officer. It is further submitted by Mr.
Jha that from the papers relating to proceeding before the Executive Officer on
04.07.2024 it would reveal that the summary trial against the writ petitioner
Page 12 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
was conducted in respect of six charges as framed against the writ petitioner
namely; for the offence under Section 60(a) of the said Act as allegedly
committed on 20.12.2022, under Section 47(c) of the said Act as allegedly
committed on 19.01.2023, under Section 68 of the said Act as allegedly
committed on 21.06.2024, under Sections 74/60(a) of the said Act as allegedly
committed on 21.06.2024 and under Section 68 of the said Act as allegedly
committed on 25.06.2024 wherein it was found that two charges namely
Charge (iii) and (iv) i.e. offences under Section 47(c) and 68 of the said Act were
found to be not proved and hence dropped however, the said Executive Officer
found that the remaining four charges have been duly proved and thus gave an
endorsement 'Commodore's Report'.
25. It is submitted further that from the file of papers it would reveal that
one P Sasi Kumar, Commodore (04698-A), Commanding Officer conducted the
summary trial and on conclusion of the same he found that the charges have
been duly proved and thus he decided the matter with the endorsement
'remanded' and on the basis of which the said Commodore issued the
impugned 'punishment warrant form' containing the impugned punishment
dated 29.07.2024 as has been approved by the Regulating Officer on
24.08.2024 and the same has also been approved the CNS vide his
endorsement dated 28.11.2024.
26. It is further submitted by Mr. Jha that from the materials as available in
the file relating to punishment warrant of the writ petitioner it would reveal
that in terms of the Regulation 22 to 33 of the said Regulations, all the charges
Page 13 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
were read over to the writ petitioner / accused in the process of investigation
(s) as well as while holding summary trial and thus the allegation as labeled by
the writ petitioner that principle of natural justice has not followed in the said
summary trial proceeding is contrary to the truth. It is further submitted that
in connection with the said summary trial proceeding as well as investigation
due opportunity was given to the writ petitioner to avail the assistance of the
defending officer.
27. It is further submitted that the allegation regarding enhancement of
charges in the retrial proceeding is also not correct since according to the
respondent authorities, the writ petitioner committed four more naval offences
within the meaning of Section 3(13) of the said Act and thus the respondent
authorities are justified to try those four offences as committed after the order
of retrial along with the two original charges in the retrial proceeding. It is thus
submitted that no miscarriage of justice occurred in the retrial proceeding as
wrongly argued. It is thus submitted by Mr. Jha that it is a fit case for
dismissal of the instant writ petition.
28. In course of her reply Ms. Roy however, contended that the memo dated
13.02.2024 is the order of the reviewing authority as has been passed by an
inappropriate authority in an inappropriate manner. It is contended further
that there occurred a mismatch of the numbers of the punishment warrant
form as received by the writ petitioner and as available in the original file which
cannot be explained by the respondent authorities raising a serious doubt with
regard to the genuineness of the said punishment proceeding.
Page 14 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
29. This Court has meticulously gone through the entire materials as placed
before me including the relevant provisions of the said Act as well as the
relevant regulations of the said Regulations. This Court has given due
consideration over the submissions of the Learned Advocates for the
contending parties.
30. For effective adjudication of the instant lis, this Court at the very outset
proposes to look to Sections 3(13), 93 and 163 of the said Act which are quoted
hereinbelow in verbatim.
31. Section 3(13) of the said Act is as under:-
"3(13). "naval offence" means any of the offences under
sections 34 to 76;"
32. Section 93 of the said Act is as under:-
"93. Power of court-martial and commanding officers
to try offences.-- (1) An offence triable under this Act
may be tried and punished by court-martial.
(2) An offence not capital which is triable under this Act
and which is committed by a person other than an officer
(and in cases by this Act expressly provided for when
committed by an officer), may, subject to regulations made
under this Act be summarily tried and punished by the
commanding officer of the ship to which the offender
belongs at the time either of the commission or of the trial
of the offence, subject to the restriction that the
commanding officer shall not have power to award
imprisonment or detention for more than three months, or
to award dismissal with disgrace from the naval service:
Provided that no sentence of imprisonment or dismissal
shall be carried into effect until approved by the prescribed
authorities.
(3) ............
(4) ............."
Page 15 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
33. Section 163 of the said Act is as under:-
"163. Powers of Central Government and the Chief of
the Naval Staff in respect of findings and
sentences.--(1) Where any person is tried under the
provisions of this Act, the Central Government or the Chief
of the Naval Staff, may, in the case of a conviction,--
(a) set aside the finding and sentence and acquit or
discharge the accused or order him to be retried, or
(b) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence
(provided that such sentence may be legally passed on the
altered finding), or 50
(c) with or without altering the finding, reduce the
sentence or commute the punishment awarded for any
punishment inferior in scale, or
(d) either with or without conditions, pardon the
person or remit the whole or any part of the punishment
awarded, or
Provided that a sentence of imprisonment shall not be
commuted for a sentence of detention for a term exceeding
the term of imprisonment awarded, and a sentence of
dismissal with disgrace not accompanied by a sentence of
imprisonment shall not be commuted for a sentence of
detention:
Provided further that nothing in this section shall
authorise the Central Government or the Chief of the Naval
Staff to enhance the sentence.
(2) ..........
(3) .........."
34. In considered view of this Court some of the regulations of the said
Regulations are required to be looked into and those are also quoted
hereinbelow in verbatim.
"7. Powers of punishment of Commanding Officer: -
(1) The Commanding officer may summarily try and punish
any offence triable under the Act Committed by a sailor
other than a capital offence and may, subject to the
Page 16 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
provisions of these regulations, award the several
punishments specified in regulation 13, provided that: -
(a) If the offence is alleged to have been committed
by a sailor who is entitled under these regulations to
electorial by court-martial, the procedure described in
these regulations therefore shall be followed;
(b) except as provided in regulation 36 a Chief Petty
Officer, a Petty Officer, a sailor holding a leading rank or a
sailor holding a good conduct badge shall not be
summarily sentenced to imprisonment or detention;
(c) a Commanding Officer shall not try summarily
an offence where the Chief of the Naval Staff has by
general or special order directed that it shall be dealt with
by court-martial.
(2) ..............
(3) .............."
****************************************************************
“13. Summary Punishments: – (1) The following
punishments may be awarded summarily to sailors other
than Artificer Apprentices and Boys under training subject
to the provisions of the Act and these regulations and may
be referred to by the numbers prefixed to each of them,
namely: –
No. 1 – Imprisonment for a period not exceeding
three months;
No.2- Detention for a period not exceeding three
months;
No.3- Dismissal from the Naval service;
No.3A- Forfeiture of seniority in rank of not more
than 12 months in case of Master Chief Petty Officer;
No.3B- Forfeiture of time for promotion of not more
than 12 months in case of Master Chief Petty Officer;
No.4- Reduction in rank;
No.5- Fine in respect of Civil offences;
No.6- Mulcts of pay and allowances;
No.7- Omitted;
No.8- Solitary confinement in a cell or under a canvas
screen for a period not exceeding fourteen days;
No.9- Deprivation of Good Conduct Badge and Good
Conduct Medal;
Page 17 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
No.10 – Reprimand by the Captain;
No.11- Extra work and drill for a period not exceeding
fourteen days;
No.12- Stoppage of leave for a period not exceeding
sixty days;
No.13- Extra work or drill for not more than two hours
in a day for a period not exceeding seven days;
No.14- Admonition.
(2) The punishments which may be awarded to Artificer
Apprentices and Boys under training shall be as set forth
in Chapter III of these Regulations.”
****************************************************************
“15. Punishments requiring approval of superior
authority: -(1) Punishment No.3, dismissal from the Naval
Service, and where any other punishment accompanies it,
the whole of the punishment proposed to be awarded shall
require the approval of the Chief of the Naval Staff.
(2) Punishment No.1, imprisonment, and punishment
No.2, detention, Punishment No.3A, forfeiture of seniority
in rank in case of Master Chief Petty Officer and
Punishment No.3B, Forfeiture of time for promotion in case
of Master Chief Petty Officer, shall require the approval of
the Administrative Authority.
(3) Punishment No.4, 5 and punishment No.9 (in so far
as it refers to the deprivation of a Good Conduct Medal)
shall require the approval of a Flag Officer or Commodore.”
****************************************************************
“22. Investigation of departmental offences: – (1) If a
sailor commits a departmental or a divisional offence, the
offence shall be investigated by his departmental or
Divisional officer as the case may be, and he may be
summarily tried and punished by his Departmental officer
or his Divisional officer provided that the offence can be
adequately punished with in the powers of punishment
delegated to such officer.
(2) If the Departmental or the Divisional officer decides
not to deal with the case himself, he shall refer the case to
the Executive officer.
(3) Where a sailor commits any other offence such
offence may be investigated and the sailor may be tried
Page 18 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
and punished by the officer of the watch or the officer of
the day provided that the offence can be adequately
punished within the powers of punishment delegated to
the officer of the watch or the officer of the day.
(4) If the officer of the watch or the officer of the Day
decides not to deal with the case himself, he shall refer it
to the Executive officer.
(5) The Executive Officer may investigate and try and
punish summarily any offence referred to him provided it
can be adequately punished within the powers of
punishment delegated to him.
(6) If the Executive officer decides not to deal with the
case himself, he shall refer it to the Commanding Officer.”
****************************************************************
“25. Investigation of other offences: – (1) The
preliminary investigation of offences by the officer of the
Watch or officer of the day shall take place as soon as
possible after the commission of the offence while
witnesses’ memory is still fresh.
(2) The formal investigation of offences shall, when the
service and circumstances admit, be deferred until the day
following that of the commission of the offence.
(3) Hasty charges shall not be made and as far as
practicable there shall not be an y delay in the
investigation of the charge and the decision of the case
and, when the accused is found guilty in the award of the
punishment.
(4) The fact that an offender’s Service Documents are not
available shall not normally delay the investigation of an
offence though there may be some delay in the infliction of
punishment if the said documents are expected within a
reasonable time.
(5) All charges shall be investigated fully on the
quarterdeck or other suitable place, in the presence of the
complainant and the accused and the complainant,
accused and the witnesses shall be heard fully and with
impartiality.
(6) The accused, the Divisional Officer or other defending
officer, the complainant and the Master-At-Arms (or the
Page 19 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
person performing his duties) shall be present throughout
the investigation.
(7) The witnesses shall be kept apart and out of earshot
so that they cannot hear what other witnesses are saying
when giving evidence and they shall withdraw after they
have given evidence.
(8) The investigating officer shall, in every case consider
whether the case is sufficiently serious to warrant the
recording of the evidence and whether is desirable to
record it as a precaution against a witness changing his
evidence.
(9) Inconsiderate punishments:- Inconsiderate
punishments, as well as needlessly protracted
punishments, shall be avoided and in awarding
punishment regard shall be had to –
(i) the necessity for prevention of crime or offences
and for the maintenance of proper order and discipline;
(ii) the gravity of the offence and the previous
character of the offender
(iii) any consequences which may arise indirectly as
a result of the offence or of the award, particularly in
regard to the charges against the offender’s pay for
offences of absence or desertion, or for damage to or loss
of stores and such other matters.
(10) In cases of repeated offences the effect of gradually
increasing the degree of punishment until the maximum is
reached shall be tried before awarding the maximum
punishment.
(11) All altercations with excited or drunken men shall be
avoided; no man under the influence of temper or drink
shall be placed in a situation likely to excite him further
and thereby lead him to acts of violence or
insubordination.”
****************************************************************
“26. Assistance to the accused: – (1) if the alleged
offence is one which may be brought before the
Commanding officer, the accused may request and shall
be afforded at the earliest stage at which this is
practicable, the assistance of any officer or other person in
his ship whose assistance is reasonably available.
Page 20 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
(2) If no such request is made, it shall be the duty of the
Divisional officer or such other officer as the Commanding
officer may detail, having regard to the requirements of the
case, to advise the accused at all stages.
(3) The officer or person advising the accused may be
changed at any stage either at the request of the accused
or on account of exigencies of service.”
****************************************************************
“27. Procedure at investigation in general: -(1) At all
investigations the evidence in support of the charge shall
be heard first.
(2) Immediately after the charge has been read out, the
investigating officer shall warn the accused that he should
not make any statement or give any evidence on his own
behalf until all the evidence against him has been heard.
(3) On conclusion of the evidence in support of the
charge, the investigating officer shall decide whether a
case has been made out against the accused.
(4) If there is no case, the investigating officer shall either
dismiss the case or, if further evidence is likely to become
available, stand it over and if there is a prima facie case,
and it is a simple one with which the investigating officer
thinks he can deal with himself, he shall ask the accused
if he admits the charge.
(5) If the accused does not admit the charge and the
matter is one within the investigating officer’s powers of
punishment, he shall inform the accused that he will
proceed to try the case, giving him an opportunity of
making a statement and calling witnesses.”
****************************************************************
“28. Investigation by the officer of the watch, the
officer of the Day, or the Executive officer: – (1) if,
after hearing the evidence in support of the charge, the
officer of the watch, the officer of the Day or the Executive
officer is of opinion that the charge, if proved, would be
beyond his power to punish, he must bear in mind that a
confession made before him by the accused will not be
admissible in evidence at any further proceedings unless
the accused has been cautioned, before he speaks, that he
is not obliged to say any thing unless he wishes to do so,
Page 21 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
and that any statement he may make may be given in
evidence. Care should be taken to avoid any suggestion
that the accused’s answers can only be used in evidence
against him, as this may discourage an innocent person
from making a statement which might help to clear him of
the charge. The investigating officer must also bear in
mind that in case beyond his power of punishment his
functions are to see whether there is a Prima facie case, to
collect evidence when it is important that evidence be
collected immediately, and, to give the accused a chance to
make a statement. If the alleged offence is one which is
likely in itself to lead at least to a warrant punishment (as
distinct from one which may lead to a warrant punishment
because it is the culminating offence in a series of minor
offences), the investigating officer should address the
accused in the following words after hearing the evidence
in support of the charges: –
“Do you wish to say anything in answer to
the charge? You are not obliged to say
anything unless you wish to do so; but
whatever you say will be taken down in
writing and may be given in evidence.”
(2) The officer of the watch or officer of the Day need not
use these words unless he decides to hear then defence
before sending the case to the Executive Officer.
(3) If the accused makes a statement, it should be taken
down in writing, On conclusion of this statement the
investigating officer should not ask any question save to
point out any ambiguity and ask if the accused wishes to
clear it up or to point out that no reference has been made
to some charge and ask if the accused wishes to say
anything about it. In particular, nothing must be said
which indicates that the accused is expected to make any
further statement.
(4) If he has not already done so, the investigating
officer must then make up his mind whether the case
against the accused has been made out. If he decides that
no case has been made out, he is to dismiss the charge.
(5) If the investigating officer decides to refer the case to
higher authority, the accused is to be informed
Page 22 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
accordingly, the customary terminology “Commander’s
report” or “Captain’s report”, as the case may be, being
used.”
35. Keeping in mind the aforementioned legislative provisions and the
different regulations of the said Regulations if this Court looks to the facts and
circumstances as involved in the instant writ petition it appears that sufficient
materials have been placed on behalf of the respondents authorities by filing
the two numbers of original file containing the review proceeding as preferred
by the writ petitioner wherefrom it appears that in terms of the provision of
Section 163 of the said Act, the said review petition was disposed of by none
other than the CNS and not by any officer subordinate to him and thus due
compliance of the provision of the said Section has been proved. As rightly
argued by Mr. Jha that the memo dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure A5 of the Writ
Petition) is merely a communication by the concerned Captain. It thus appears
to this Court that in absence of proof of alleged violation of the provision of
Section 163 of the said Act on the part of respondent authorities, interference
is not at all called for in a judicial review.
36. The argument of Ms. Roy that during the retrial proceeding the charges
were escalated are found to be not correct in as much as materials have been
placed before this court that after communication of the finding of the
reviewing authority and before initiation of the retrial proceeding by the
commander, the writ petitioner allegedly committed four more offences within
the meaning of Section 3(13) of the said Act and thus the respondent
authorities were very much justified in clubbing four more additional charges
Page 23 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
with the two charges as have been directed to be retried by the reviewing
authority and thus in considered view of this Court no miscarriage of justice
occurred warranting intervention of this court as prayed for.
37. The argument of Ms. Roy regarding non-supply/ non-service of the
altered charge-sheet including the relevant documents prior to initiation of the
summary proceeding is found also to be not correct in as much as regulation
27 of the said Regulations clearly postulates regarding the procedure for
reading out the charges to the accused after considering the evidence in
support of the charge at the stage of each investigation as mentioned in Section
II of the said Regulations which deals with ‘Investigation’. This court has
meticulously gone though the entire files regarding punishment warrant of the
writ petitioner and it has been noticed that in all stages of investigation,
charges were read out to the writ petitioner prior to commencement of the
investigation/summary proceeding. In view of such, this court has got no
hesitation to hold that principles of natural justice and fair play have been duly
observed by the respondent authorities in retrial proceeding.
38. In course of her argument Ms. Roy was very vocal with regard to the
alleged ‘double jeopardy’ as suffered by the writ petitioner in as much as it is
her contention that prior to initiation of the retrial proceeding, the respondents
authorities did not restore the writ petitioner to his original position ignoring
the finding of the reviewing authority regarding quashing of the four
punishments in the earlier round of summary proceeding which is however
strongly disputed by Mr. Jha in course of his argument.
Page 24 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
39. This Court has meticulously gone through the finding of one Sri P Sasi
Kumar, Commodore (04698-A), Commanding Officer dated 29.07.2024 as
available in the relevant file wherein while dealing with the background of the
summary proceeding as conducted by him the said commodore observed as
under:-
“3. The sailor filed a review petition u/s 163 of the Navy
Act 1957 and proceeded on transfer to INS Dega on 25
Mar 23. Considering the Review Petition submitted by the
Sailor, the competent authority at NHQ set aside the trial
proceedings and punishments with a direction to re-try the
Sailor Vide letter quoted at Para 1(a) ibid. Accordingly,
HQENC/SO(P) had directed this unit to restore the Sailor’s
original rank by cancelling the Punishment Genforn.
Therefore, the Punishment Genforn iro the sailor was
cancelled and forwarded to CABS for cancellation of BOP.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
40. It thus appears to this court that the competent authority while
disposing the summary proceeding came to a factual finding on consideration
of the relevant documents as available before him that prior to initiation of
retrial proceeding the writ petitioner was restored his original rank by
cancelling the earlier punishment and in absence of any contrary material, this
court finds no reason to disbelieve such factual finding in judicial review and
thus this court holds that the contention of the writ petitioner that he suffered
‘double jeopardy’ has got no basis at all.
41. The contention of the writ petitioner that the retrial proceeding was
vitiated by ‘doctrine of bias’ is also found to be incorrect in as much as from the
original file with the caption ‘punishment warrant-Rinku Singh’, it would reveal
Page 25 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
that after investigation, retrial proceeding was actually conducted by Sri P. Sasi
Kumar, Commodore (04698-A), Commanding Officer and not by one Sri
Joydeep Chakraborty.
42. It thus appears to this court that in the retrial proceeding the respondent
authorities acted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the said Act and
the said Regulations. It further appears that there was sufficient justification
on part of the respondents authorities to add four more charges with the two
original charges in the retrial proceeding on account of commission of
subsequent offences within the meaning of Section 3(13) of the said Act and
thus no miscarriage of justice occurred in re-trial proceeding.
43. In considered view of this court the reported decision of Biecco Lawrie
Ltd. (Supra) as cited of behalf of the writ petitioner is practically helpful for the
respondents in view of the fact from the files as placed before this Court by the
respondents authorities it would reveal that the said authorities prior to
commencement of the summary proceeding have duly followed the procedure of
investigation as envisaged in Section II of the said Regulations giving adequate
opportunity to the writ petitioner to meet the charges as framed against him
and to make an effective defense.
44. The reported decisions of Siemens Engineering (supra) and S.N.
Mukherjee (supra) are also helpful to the respondent authorities in view of the
fact that this court has already come to a finding that the respondent
authority/authorities while passing the order for re-trial as well as while
Page 26 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
imposing the punishment as impugned before this court had recorded its
reason in support of the order it makes.
45. Since in the forgoing paragraphs this court has already reached at its
logical conclusion that in the impugned proceedings before the respondent
authorities the principles of natural justice and fairness have been duly
followed, in further considered view of this court the reported decisions of Mrs.
Maneka Gandhi (Supra), Mohinder Singh Gill (Supra), Anita Kushwaha
(supra) and Raj Kumar M.E.-1 (supra) are no way helpful to the writ
petitioner. In further considered view of this court the reported decisions of V.
Kumar (Supra) and Balai Chandra Singha Roy (Supra) are no way
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant writ petition in as
much as this court has noticed that at no material point of time any delegation
of power took place either in the review proceeding or while imposing impugned
punishment upon the writ petitioner since the CNS himself passed the said
order for retrial in the review proceeding and he himself approved the
punishment of the writ petitioner from the Naval Service in terms of the
provision of regulation 15 of the said Regulations.
46. In view of the discussion made hereinabove this court thus finds no
reason to interfere with the order of dismissal as communicated to the writ
petitioner vide Punishment Warrant Form dated 09.12.2024 (page 102 of the
Writ Petition and page 143) and as have been approved by the Chief of the
Naval Staff on 28.11.2024.
Page 27 of 28
2026:CHC-AS:784
47. As a result the instant writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There
shall be however no order as to cost.
48. Assistant Court Officer attached to this Court is directed to return the
two original files to the learned Advocate on record for the respondents
authorities on receipt of an acknowledgment to be kept in the file.
49. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given
to the parties on completion of usual formalities.
(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)
Page 28 of 28
[ad_1]
Source link
