Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. In view of the objection raised by the Registry, heard on the question of territorial jurisdiction. 2. This is an OA, under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 seeking the following reliefs:- 1) Declaration to the effect that the ACRs in question are technically invalid, 2) Quashment of the result of No 3 Selection Board qua the petitioner and 3) Direction to consider the case of applicant by No. 3 Special Review (Fresh) Selection Board and in the event of his being declared fit for promotion to grant all consequential benefits including no loss of seniority. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner is presently posted as a Lt.Col. at Meerut Cantt. and none of the ACRs was recorded or reviewed at New Delhi. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner, has strenuously contended that the order dated 04.02.2013 (Annexure A-1) rejecting the statutory complaint made by him against the non-empanelment and technically invalid ACRs, constituted a part of cause of action in terms of Rule 6(1)(ii) A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This petition was originally filed on 05.02.2009 before the Honble High Court of Delhi as WP(C) No.802 of 2009. Thereafter, it was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal on 05.02.2010 and was registered as TA No.508/2010. 2. Vide this petition, the applicant has sought setting aside of the discharge order issued by Army Medical Corps Records, Lucknow dated 27.01.2005 (Annexure P-1) by which he was discharged being LMC(P) case. The applicant has also sought reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits which include pay and allowances, continuity of service, promotion with ante date seniority. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled as a Sepoy in the Army Medical Corps on 25.02.1995. In Feb 2002, the applicant suffered from Primary Hypertension while serving in the counter insurgency area of Doda, Jammu and Kashmir and was downgraded to LMC P-2 (P). 4. Subsequently, the applicant was discharged from military service on 01.06.2005 on the grounds o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant Havildar Ram Bahadur had filed a writ petition (civil) number 9912 of 2009 before the Honble Delhi High Court, challenging the correctness and legality of the impugned order dated 4.2.2009 by which his statutory complaint with regard to promotion to Havildar Ram Bahadur TA 170 of 09 the rank of Naib Subedar was rejected. The case was transferred to this Tribunal on 24.9.2009 under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. 2. The applicants date of birth is 1.1.1964 and he was enrolled in the Army on 25.1.1984. He was promoted to the rank of Havildar in 1999 with seniority of 1998 and he successfully completed the Cadre Course for promotion to Naib Subedar between 30.10.2006 to 17.2.2007 but due to non availability of vacancy till 31.12.2007 he could not be promoted. Thereafter, he was denied promotion as he had crossed the requisite limit of age for promotion on 31.12.2007 vide order dated 5.1.2008 (Annexure P-1). It was submitted by the applicant that it was not the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
A.K. Mathur, Chairperson 1. Petitioner vide this petition has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order (findings and sentence) dated 29.04.2009 of the court martial and order dated 25.06.2009 of the Chief of Naval Staff in judicial review of the proceedings of the trial by court martial of the petitioner. 2. Petitioner joined the Indian Navy in July, 1987 as a Cadet in Naval Academy, INS Mandovi, Goa. He passed from the Naval Academy after successfully completing his training. He stood first in his course and was awarded Presidents Gold Medal. He was commissioned as a Sub Lt on 01.01.1989. He opted for Aviation and joined Air Force Academy, Dundigal, Hyderabad in July, 1989 for flying training. Petitioner successfully completed his flying training and he stood first in the said flying training. After his flying training, he became a Naval helicopter pilot and continued to fly Chetak. At the material time, he was serving in the Indian Navy with the rank of a Commander and borne ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. In this case (W.P No. 5685 of 1998) filed before the Delhi High Court, the challenge is directed against the findings and sentence of the court martial dated 8.6.2004, whereby the petitioner was found guilty of Charge Nos. 1 and 2 under Navy Act Section 60(d), Charge Nos. 8 and 9 under Navy Act Section 54(2), Charge Nos. 3, 10 and 12 under Section 13()1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read in conjunction with Navy Act Section 77(2) and Charge Nos.4, 5 and 6 under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read in conjunction with Navy Act Section 77(2) and sentenced (i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eighteen calendar months, (ii) to be dismissed from naval service (iii) to forfeit 36 calendar months seniority in the substantive rank of Captain and (iv) to pay a fine of Rs.3 lakhs with default clause. On formation of this Tribunal, the said writ petition was transferred to this Bench and treated it to be an appeal (T.A No. 365 of 2009)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Petitioner vide this petition has prayed that impugned orders dated 19.07.2010, 03.06.2009 and 20.04.2010 be quashed and respondents be directed to reinstate him with all consequential benefits. 2. Petitioner was enrolled in the Regiment of Artillery on 10.06.1997 and allotted the trade of Technical Assistant. After successful completion of training, he was posted to 197 Field Regiment (now 197 Medium Regiment) in October 1998. During his service of 12 years, he worked with complete dedication and unflinching loyalty to the organization. 3. On 02.02.2008, petitioner was given a Show Cause Notice by his Commanding Officer (CO) Col Pankaj Dimri. Petitioner gave reply to the same on 09.02.2008 giving justification of each alleged misconduct. No further action in the matter was initiated by his CO, therefore, it was presumed that reply of the petitioner was accepted and the alleged misconduct was condoned by the CO. After 13 months of the above said incident, petitioner was issued anoth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This writ petition was brought before the Delhi High Court for quashing the Summary Court Martial (SCM) proceedings being void ab initio. Simultaneously, reinstatement in service with backwages after setting aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under Army Act Section 63 was also sought. On formation of this Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred for disposal and it being converted into an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, is disposed of by this judgment. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal are: The appellant was posted to 512 ASC Battalion on 9.12.1991. He was given the duties of Driver of a 4 ton lorry of B Company. On 31.12.1993, he was assigned to carry engine assembles of 257 EME Workshop along with another vehicle from Nasirabad to Jodhpur. Enroute, he consumed liquor, though he was dissuaded by his co-driver. On his way, he picked up a stranded army person, Hav. R.S Rajpur of 1566 Pioneer Company attached with 1804...
Tag this Judgment!