Page 1 of 28

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 2 of 28

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 3 of 28

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 4 of 28

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-à-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 5 of 28

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 6 of 28

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 7 of 28

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-à-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 8 of 28

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 9 of 28

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 10 of 28

(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 11 of 28

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-à-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 12 of 28

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 13 of 28

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 14 of 28

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 15 of 28

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 16 of 28

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 17 of 28

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 18 of 28

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 19 of 28

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 20 of 28

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 21 of 28

(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 22 of 28

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 23 of 28

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 24 of 28

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 25 of 28

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 26 of 28

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 27 of 28

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 28 of 28

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.)