The Rajasthan High Court has held that when a person serving in the Armed Forces as a soldier, sailor, or airman is required to be served with summons in connection with judicial proceedings, the summons must be routed through the concerned commanding officer in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the General Rules (Civil & Criminal), 2018. The Court emphasized that compliance with this requirement is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with by adopting alternative methods of service that do not conform to the statutory framework.
The issue arose while the Court was considering a challenge to an ex parte order passed by a revisional court in proceedings connected with a criminal case. The primary question before the High Court was whether service of summons upon a person serving in the Armed Forces could be regarded as valid and sufficient merely because the summons had been sent through registered post and a postal tracking report indicated delivery. The Court examined the legal framework governing service of summons on military personnel and considered whether the procedure prescribed by the relevant rules had been followed in the present case.
The matter involved a petitioner serving in the Indian Navy. An FIR had earlier been registered against the petitioner and certain other persons under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. However, no charge sheet was filed against the petitioner during the course of the investigation. Aggrieved by this position, the complainant moved an application seeking cognizance against the petitioner. The application was initially rejected. The complainant thereafter approached the revisional court by filing a revision petition challenging the rejection of the application.
The revisional court proceeded to hear and decide the matter ex parte. According to the petitioner, the order was passed without ensuring proper service of summons upon him. At the relevant time, the petitioner was serving with the Indian Navy and was posted away on official duties. It was contended that he had never received any notice regarding the proceedings before the revisional court and was therefore deprived of an opportunity to appear and place his case before the court.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the law specifically provides a complete mechanism for serving summons upon members of the Armed Forces. It was submitted that Order 31 Rule 5 of the General Rules (Civil & Criminal), 2018 lays down the procedure that must be followed whenever summons are required to be served upon a soldier, sailor, or airman. Under this framework, the summons are required to be sent through the commanding officer of the concerned member of the Armed Forces. The petitioner contended that this mandatory procedure had not been followed in his case.
The petitioner further submitted that the revisional court proceeded on the basis of a postal tracking report and treated the summons as duly served without verifying compliance with the special procedure applicable to Armed Forces personnel. It was argued that such a course was contrary to the mandatory provisions governing service upon military personnel and consequently rendered the proceedings vulnerable to challenge. The petitioner maintained that had the summons been routed through the commanding officer in the prescribed manner, he would have had an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and defend his interests.
While examining the issue, the High Court considered the object and purpose behind the special provisions governing service of summons on soldiers, sailors, and airmen. The Court observed that members of the Armed Forces often remain engaged in operational duties and may be posted at locations where ordinary modes of service are inadequate. The rules therefore contemplate a separate mechanism to ensure that military personnel receive proper notice of judicial proceedings while also allowing sufficient time for necessary administrative arrangements to be made.
The Court noted that Order 31 Rule 5 of the General Rules (Civil & Criminal), 2018 specifically requires the presiding officer to send the summons for service to the commanding officer of the concerned soldier, sailor, or airman. A copy of the summons is also required to be retained by the concerned person. According to the Court, the purpose behind this arrangement is to ensure that adequate time is available for relieving the concerned individual from military operations or official duties so that he may participate in the proceedings. The Court emphasized that the provision is not merely procedural in nature but serves an important practical function in safeguarding the rights of Armed Forces personnel while accommodating the demands of military service.
The High Court observed that the language of the rule leaves no room for ambiguity and clearly indicates that the prescribed procedure is mandatory. The Court held that the requirement of routing summons through the commanding officer cannot be ignored or substituted by other methods when the person sought to be served is a member of the Armed Forces. Compliance with the rule is essential to ensure effective service and to provide the concerned individual with a genuine opportunity to appear before the court.
Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Court found that the summons had not been served upon the petitioner in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the rules. The prescribed procedure requiring transmission of the summons through the commanding officer had not been followed. Instead, reliance had been placed on postal records to presume service. The Court held that such service could not be regarded as sufficient in law when the individual concerned was serving in the Armed Forces and was entitled to the protections provided by the statutory framework.
The Court concluded that the failure to comply with the mandatory provisions relating to service of summons struck at the very foundation of the revisional proceedings. Since the petitioner had not been served in the manner required by law, the ex parte order passed against him could not be sustained. The Court observed that adherence to procedural safeguards is essential to ensure fairness in judicial proceedings and that an order passed without proper service cannot be permitted to stand.
Having reached this conclusion, the High Court set aside the order passed by the revisional court. The Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable because notices had not been issued and served in accordance with the statutory requirements applicable to Armed Forces personnel. The Court observed that this defect alone was sufficient to warrant interference and to invalidate the order that had been passed in the petitioner’s absence.
The matter was consequently remitted to the revisional court for fresh consideration. The High Court directed that the petitioner be afforded due opportunity to participate in the proceedings before any decision is taken. By restoring the matter to the revisional court, the High Court ensured that the dispute would be reconsidered after compliance with the mandatory procedure governing service of summons and after granting the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
Through its decision, the Court reiterated the importance of strict adherence to the statutory framework governing service of summons upon members of the Armed Forces. The judgment underscores that soldiers, sailors, and airmen occupy a distinct position because of the nature of their duties and operational commitments. The procedural safeguards incorporated in the rules are intended to account for these realities and to ensure that military personnel are not prejudiced in judicial proceedings due to their official responsibilities.
The ruling reinforces the principle that courts must follow the procedure specifically prescribed for serving Armed Forces personnel and cannot treat alternative methods as sufficient where the law mandates service through the commanding officer. The Court made it clear that compliance with the prescribed mechanism is necessary to secure a fair opportunity of participation for military personnel and to maintain the integrity of judicial proceedings. The judgment ultimately resulted in the setting aside of the ex parte order and the restoration of the matter for fresh adjudication after proper service and an effective opportunity of hearing are provided to the petitioner.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.