Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... this petition u/s 226 of the constitution of india was brought for quashing the proceedings of the summary court martial (scm) whereby the appellant was held guilty for the offence u/s 52 (a) of the army act for committing theft of 3 rifles (property belonging to govt. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... therefore, he was tried for both these offences by dcm and given the punishment of reduced to the ranks and dismissal from service, which certainly cannot be considered harsh or disproportionate. 6. ..... despite producing medical evidence, the authorities were not convinced and court martialled him for the following offences. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... this petition challenges the summary court martial (scm) proceedings of 4th may 2007 wherein the petitioner was held guilty for three offences under army act section 64 (e) and was sentenced to be reduced to the ranks, to suffer imprisonment for three months and to be dismissed from service. ..... thereafter investigations commenced and the appellant was charged with three offences as under. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... the petitioner was charged for two offences under army act sections 39(b) and 41(2): first charge (i) aa sec 39(b) without sufficient cause overstaying leave granted to him. ..... however, the petitioner had a past record of four disciplinary entries which are appended below: sl no unit offence date punishment (a) 18 garhwal rifles aa sec.39(a) dec. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... the applicant has submitted that in w.p (c) no.9124 of 2008, a miscellaneous application under section 151 of the code of civil procedure was filed by the respondents attributing knowledge regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... competent authority after having applied his mind to the full facts of the case decides to initiate administrative action and such action has commenced, trying the officer summarily or by court martial for the same offence subsequently is inequitable. ..... /court may quash a proceeding, inter alia, in the event the allegations made in the complaint/show cause notice, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose commission of an offence. ..... the allegation made against the petitioner makes out, prima facie, an offence. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
n.p. gupta, member (judicial) 1. this bunch of matters have come to this larger bench pursuant to the order passed by the regular bench on 06.09.2012 in oa no.279/2011 to the effect that learned counsel for the parties submitted that there is a conflict of decision on the issue involved in the present bunch of cases with regard to the policy dated 20.09.2010, in asmuch as the principal bench has taken one view of the matter and as against this, allahabad bench and kochi bench had taken a separate view. therefore, it was felt necessary to refer the matter to the larger bench. 2. obviously all these matters involved the common question of law and are, therefore, being decided by this common order. 3. hearing the learned counsel for the parties, at the outset, we were taken through the three judgments being those of the principal bench and the lucknow and kochi benches of this tribunal. the judgment of the principal bench is dated 04.04.2012 passed in oa 513/2011 nb. subedar gulab rao vs. union of india. the judgment of lucknow bench is dated 15.02.2012 passed in bunch of cases led by oa no.234/2010 sub. brijesh kumar shukla vs. chief of the army staff and others and the judgment of the kochi bench is dated 21.03.2012 again passed in bunch of cases led by oa no.67/2011 have. manktu ram vs. union of india and others. 4. after going through these three judgments, not only we have no hesitation in observing rather learned counsel for either side also felt and conveyed that there is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... reena tripathi, there was no offence that the applicant has committed, but the authority failed to understand and took a harsh decision and against the law. 10. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. the petitioner vide this petition has prayed that respondents be directed to grant him disability pension from 01.08.1995 to 25.08.2009. 2. the petitioner was enrolled in the indian army as a regular combatant on 04.05.1979. in august 1984, he was posted in kupuwara sector and assigned night duty on balbir post. during patrolling, the petitioner had fell down after slipping from the ice and became unconscious and one of the guard found the petitioner lying unconsciously and took him in the bunker. he was admitted in 92, base hospital for his medical treatment. since he was not responded to the treatment, the petitioner was referred to command hospital, udhampur and thereafter he was discharged from the command hospital with down category cee (temporary) for six months and was sent to jabalpur centre with remarks not fit for hills and cold area. after a period of two months the petitioner was called back to his unit and again after six months, the petitioner had undergone a check up and was categorised cee (temporary). the petitioner attended the third medical board and was categorised cee (permanent) and thereafter he was sent to sri lanka as a troop during peace keeping force operation. 3. in the year 1984, the petitioner developed satica drome. on 30.07.1995, the petitioner was recommended by the medical board under rule 13 (2a) of the army rules, 1954 read with para iii(iii) of the table thereto, for being invalided out of service on account of disability which was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... this petition is brought for quashing the order dated 09.04.2008 passed by summary court martial (scm) whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence u/s.52(b) of the army act 1950 for committing theft of medicines from army hospital (r and r) delhi cantt. ..... the petitioner was charged for the offences u/s.52 (a) of army act 1950 for committing theft of the government property/ medicine and also u/s.63 of the army act for an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline. ..... there is ample evidence on record to fasten the culpability of the accused for the aforesaid offences coupled with his plea of guilt. ..... and also for the offence u/s.63 of the army act for his acts which were prejudicial to good order and military discipline. .....
Tag this Judgment!