Case Comment On S.N. Mukherjee V. Union Of India
Kritika Lohia, Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur, Symbiosis International University
Case Title: S.N. Mukherjee V. Union of India
Date of Judgement: August 28, 1990
Court: Supreme Court of India
Quorum: Sabyasachi Mukharji, CJ., S.C. Agrawal, J., M.H. Kania, J., K.J. Shetty, J. and K.N. Saikia, J.
Citation: (1990) 4 SCC 594
I. INTRODUCTION
In the jurisprudence of administrative law, procedural fairness is not merely a structural formality but is an essential safeguard against arbitrariness. The landmark decision in the case of S.N. Mukerjee v. Union of India undertook a comprehensive examination of the requirement for administrative and quasi-judicial authorities to record reasons for their decisions. This case comment examines the balance created by the Court between the demands of natural justice and statutory requirements, and the scope and limits of the orders.
II. FACTS
The appellant is an officer in regular army who had title of captain and held a permanent commission. The appellant stepped in as Officer Commanding attached to Military Hospital of Jhansi on 27th Dec, 1974. The appellant had gone for training in August and came back in November, during this period Officer G.C. Chhabra was there on appellant’s behalf. During, this training period of the appellant, Officer Chhabra had moved a contingent bill for 16,280 Rs. for winter uniforms of the watchman and cleaners, on 25th September, 1975, but it was sent back Controller Defence Account due to certain objections. A new bill of amount 7029.57 Rs. was submitted by plaintiff on 25th December, 1975, considering the variation of amount in both bills CDA reported matter for enquiry and court held appellant to be liable for lapses. On 7th January, 1977 the General Commanding Officer passed that displeasures to be recorded, General officer commanding in chief of central Command should be given to appellant, but it was disagreed by General Officer Commanding in chief and passed an order on 26th August, 1977, that said that action is to be taken against the appellant. Chargesheet came to filed on 20th July, 1978 and three charges were levelled against the appellant in front of General Court Martial. The three charges levelled against the appellant were under Section 52-f of The Army Act, 1950 which talks about doing something with an intention of fraud, and the other two charges were under Section 63 of Army Act which talks about acts causing prejudice to discipline and military order. After examination of 22 witnesses, it was proved that appellant was guilty for the first and third charge but not the second charge, the General Court Martial passed an order dismissing the appellant from his service, on 29th November, 1978. Appellant filed a petition to chief of Army staff to not confirm the findings but it was confirmed by him. So, the appellant filed a petition to Central Government under Section 164(2) of the Army Act, 1950, this was also rejected. This section says that if a person is not satisfied with the findings or decision of the court martial, then he has authority to file a petition to Central Government and the Central Government may pass any order as it may think fit. The appellant further filed a petition in High Court, which also came to be rejected so he filed a petition in Supreme Court by special leave of court challenging the Hon’ble High Court’s decision.
