Sharvan Kumar vs Union of India on 15 October 2026

ORDER

JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

On 29.12.2023, the appellant was posted to 17 Corps Operating Signal Regiment. In addition to his trade duty, he was detailed as Wine-in-Charge of the ‘A’ Mess since 02.01.2015. On 23.01.2015 at about 0900 hrs, he went to office of Mess Secretary, Lt Col Rohit Chandra Singh (Respondent No. 4) for briefing and orders for forthcoming party to be held on 26.01.2015. It is alleged that during briefing, respondent No.4 became abusive. Despite the same, the appellant stated that he was sorry and returned to the bar.

2. On the same day, at around 1030 hrs, respondent No. 4 called him again and told him to put up bills of previous events. He also told him to explain the delay in putting up the bills. While the appellant was giving his explanation, respondent No. 4 again became abusive. He suddenly stood up and pushed the appellant. Thereafter, he raised his chair to hit the appellant but was saved by other persons present there. Thereafter, he ordered a guard to take the appellant into custody. While in custody, he was assaulted by respondent No. 4 with a wooden log but restrained by Guard Commander.

OA (Appeal) 2104 of 2016 Sharvan Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors

....2/-

3. An inquiry was conducted and Summary of Evidence (S of E) was recorded. Vide his recommendation dated 11.03.2015, the Commanding Officer recommended that suitable action be taken against the respondent No. 4 as well as the appellant.

4. During hearing of the charge, the appellant refused to sign the charge sheet in presence of the witnesses. Two witnesses were examined and the appellant declined to cross-examine them. He also declined to make a statement.

5. Summary Court Martial (SCM) commenced on 14.11.2015. The appellant was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty. After examining the witnesses, SCM pronounced its findings and sentenced on 12.12.2015. The appellant was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 89 days in military custody. Mercy Petition dated 26.03.2016 submitted by the appellant was rejected.

6. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Commanding Officer had recommended appropriate action against the appellant as well as respondent No. 4 vide his order dated 11.03.2015. The said order was passed after perusing S of E. The appellant had been punished but no action had been taken against the respondent No.

4. Thus, the appeal be allowed and the appellant be paid salary for 89 days during which he was in military custody.

7. On being specifically asked whether there is any proof on record that no action was taken against the respondent No.4, the response is in negative.

8. Even if it is assumed that no action has been taken against respondent No. 4, the appellant cannot challenge his conviction and sentence on the said ground. The submission pre-supposes that the appellant has nothing to say

OA (Appeal) 2104 of 2016 Sharvan Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors

....3/- regarding his findings and sentence or its illegality. Thus, the submission cannot be accepted especially when there is no proof on record of the fact alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant .

9. In view of the above, the Original Application has no merit and is dismissed.

(Lt Gen (Dr) Ranbir Singh)

(Justice Sudhir Mittal) Member (A)

Member (J)

15thOct, 2026 ‘dp’ REPORTABLE : NO