Nagendra Kumar Tripathi Vs. Chief of Army Staff and ors.

Nagendra Kumar Tripathi vs Chief of Army Staff and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 10, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/485997

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/485997
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Sushil Harkauli, J.
Decided On: Nov 10, 2003
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 49853 of 2003
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Service
Acts & sections: Army Act, 1950 - Sections 26; Army Rules, 1954 - Rule 14

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nagendra Kumar Tripathi

Advocate C.A. Kumar, Adv.

Respondent

Chief of Army Staff and ors.

Advocate B.N. Singh, Sr. S.C. and ;Aradhana Chauhan, Addl. S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Army Act, 1950 - Sections 26; Army Rules, 1954 - Rule 14
Reported In: 2004(1)AWC842

Excerpt

- .....under rule 14 (b) (iii) on his own request. the respondents also enclosed a photocopy of the request application of the petitioner.3. against the premature discharge of the petitioner from the army he has preferred a statutory complaint under section 26 of the army act, 1950. if has been alleged by the petitioner that said statutory complaint has not been decided so far.4. in the circumstances, the respondent no. 1 is directed to consider the statutory complaint in accordance with the procedure of his office and to decide the same within three months of the date on which a certified copy of this order alongwith a self attested copy of this writ petition is presented by the petitioner before the respondent no. 1.5. learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that chief of the army staff should be directed to decide the statutory complaint by a reasoned order. the prayer cannot be granted for the following reason.6. in the office of the chief of the army staff these statutory complaints have a specialised procedure for being dealt with. there is a body known as 'complaint advisory board' (c.a.b. for short) which investigates every complaint after making such inquiry as may be considered necessary and a very detailed note resulting from such inquiry with the relevant legal provisions referred is given to the chief of army staff, often with suggestions and options. the c.o.a.s. examines the same and personally under his own signatures passes orders which generally do not contain detailed reasoning. but by and large this procedure has stood the test of time in respect of the inquiry into the statutory complaints and their fair disposal.7. it is worthwhile to mention here that if the court starts issuing direction to the chief of the army staff to decide every statutory complaint of every jawan and every officer throughout the country by detailed judgments, the chief of the army staff during his entire tenure would be doing nothing except writing judgments in.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Sushil Harkauli, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2. According to the letter of the respondents, the petitioner is said to have been prematurely discharged from service under Rule 14 (b) (iii) on his own request. The respondents also enclosed a photocopy of the request application of the petitioner.

3. Against the premature discharge of the petitioner from the Army he has preferred a statutory complaint under Section 26 of the Army Act, 1950. If has been alleged by the petitioner that said statutory complaint has not been decided so far.

4. In the circumstances, the respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the statutory complaint in accordance with the procedure of his office and to decide the same within three months of the date on which a certified copy of this order alongwith a self attested copy of this writ petition is presented by the petitioner before the respondent No. 1.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that Chief of the Army Staff should be directed to decide the statutory complaint by a reasoned order. The prayer cannot be granted for the following reason.

6. In the office of the Chief of the Army Staff these statutory complaints have a specialised procedure for being dealt with. There is a body known as 'Complaint Advisory Board' (C.A.B. for short) which investigates every complaint after making such inquiry as may be considered necessary and a very detailed note resulting from such inquiry with the relevant legal provisions referred is given to the Chief of Army Staff, often with suggestions and options. The C.O.A.S. examines the same and personally under his own signatures passes orders which generally do not contain detailed reasoning. But by and large this procedure has stood the test of time in respect of the inquiry into the statutory complaints and their fair disposal.

7. It is worthwhile to mention here that if the Court starts issuing direction to the Chief of the Army Staff to decide every statutory complaint of every Jawan and every officer throughout the country by detailed Judgments, the Chief of the Army Staff during his entire tenure would be doing nothing except writing Judgments in respect of such complaints which are thousands in number. Therefore, the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable.

8. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2003 Same Parties Nagendra Kumar Tripathi vs Chief of Army Staff and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge Sushil Harkauli, J. Acts & Sections Army Act, 1950 - Sections 26; Army Rules, 1954 - Rule 14

Service