Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... which the appellant was facing in the unit since he belongs to the state of bihar and he was serving in a gorkha unit where the commonly used language was nepali. the appellant is also aggrieved at the fact that he did not plead guilty during scm, in fact, he was threatened by the co to sign the proceedings on a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
The petitioner has come up before this court against the order of dismissal passed by the Summary Court Martial dated 13.08.2011. It appears that the petitioner had filed a statutory complaint against this order before the Chief of Army Staff under section 164 (2) of the Army Act. The statutory complaint has been disposed of by the Army Chief of Staff rejecting the petition. However, the sentence of dismissal has been converted into an order of discharge. Said order has been produced by the learned counsel for the respondent today. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the petition certain facts need to be noted herein. 2. The petitioner was enrolled on 27.07.2002 as Sepoy in 64 Assault Engineer regiment, Indian Army and was posted at different places. He was attached to head quarter central command, Lucknow as draftsman. It appears that Patna Police got information that Mr. Sudhanshu Sudhakar , who had been dismissed from the Army, was proceeding to Nepal with secret info...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
A.K.Mathur, Chairperson: 1. This Writ Petition has been transferred from Delhi High Court. 2. The petitioner was commissioned in the Army Ordnance Corps on 5.3.1988 and on 16.1.1988 petitioner was posted to 23 Infantry Division Ordnance Unit then commanded by Col. H.C. Chawla. Petitioner was appointed as Administrative Officer and also Officer-in-Charge Ammunition Technical Services. It is alleged that petitioner took charge of his duties from Maj.R.K. Gosain of the same unit. 3. It is alleged that in March, 1998 Sep Rajan Babu of the same unit was apprehended by Civil Police carrying service Hand Grenade. The matter was reported by Civil Police to the unit and in preliminary inquiry the petitioner found huge quantity of unaccounted Ammunition and explosives of dangerous nature, which petitioner was not informed by his predecessor Maj.RK Gosain. Petitioner verbally brought this to the notice of his Commanding Officer, Col. HC Chawla. The ammunition was seized and was taken in charge an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This appeal is against the order dated 30.7.2002 passed by the General Court Martial (GCM, for brevity), whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, the Code) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to be dismissed from service. Simultaneously, the order dated 27.1.2002 passed by the Confirming Officer and the order dated 27.1.2004 passed by the Chief of Army Staff on the post confirmation petition under Section 164(2) of the Army Act are sought to be quashed. 2. On 29.7.2001, while on active service, the petitioner intentionally caused the death of L/Nk. Raj Kumar Sharma of 55 Engr. Regt (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). It is stated that the petitioner was falsely implicated and tried in the case and that the finding of guilt recorded for the offence under Section 69 of the Arms Act is contrary to the evidence. The finding of culpability of the petitioner arrived at by the GCM is mere...
Tag this Judgment!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
ORDER 1. This petition has been received on transfer from the Bombay High Court after coming into force of the Armed Forces Tribunal as the Bombay Regional Bench of the Tribunal is not functioning because of the lack of Judicial Member. Therefore, this petition has been transferred to the Principal Bench at New Delhi. 2. Petitioner vide this petition has prayed to quash and set aside the order of discharge dated 30.09.2005 and order dated 15.05.2009 being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner has also prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in Naval services with full salary and back-wages. 3. The respondents invited applications from young male candidates for enrolment as Matric Entry Recruits (MER) for 2/2002 Batch. The petitioner applied for the post and after clearing the necessary exam for the said post, received an offer letter dated 10.07.2002 for enrolment in the Indian Navy. He was initially directed ...
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. The OA No.272/2011 was filed in the Armed Forces Tribunal on 19.07.2011 and OA No.267/2011 was filed on 13.07.2011 respectively. By way of this common order, we shall hereby dispose off both the above mentioned OAs bearing OA No.272/2011 and 267/2011 as facts and circumstances of both the cases are common in nature and points in dispute are similar and the reliefs sought in both the cases are also similar in nature. Arguments were heard together with the request of both the parties. 2. The OA No.272/2011 filed by Shri Gajender Singh is being taken first. The applicant in this OA has prayed to set aside his discharge order dated 20.12.2010 and further prayed for reinstatement in service from the date of illegal and premature discharge i.e. 20.12.2010 with all consequential benefits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled in the Navy as a Cook NMER on 19.05.1988. During his service he was posted to various Naval establishments. 4. It is submitted by the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Petitioner vide this petition has prayed that cut-off date mentioned in the Notification dated 29.09.2009 to the extent of pre and post distinctions of 01.01.2006 for grant of disability pension to those persons who have voluntarily retired prior to 2006 may be quashed. Petitioner was commissioned in Indian Army on 27.12.1982 in Army Medical Corps after having been found fit in all respect. He served with various medical units of Indian Army from 1983 to 1996. During 1996, due to peculiar nature of service and hazardous atmosphere, petitioner suffered two disabilities namely Tear Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Medical Meniscus (Left) and subsequently he was placed in low medical category S1 H1 A3 P1 E1. On account of disabilities, petitioners movements became restricted causing difficulty in performance of his normal duties, therefore, he sought Page premature retirement after 15 years of service. Respondents vide order dated 07.01.1997 approved the request of the petitioner for premat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
The Petitioner by this petition has prayed that the Respondents be directed to pay the arrears towards disability element of the pension from 08.03.1975 till the date of representation i.e. 21.06.2002 as per the revised P.P.O. No. D/R/8465/76 dated 29.05.1976 along with interest @ 12%. He has also prayed that direct the Respondents that Petitioner is entitled to 75% + 30% disability in view of the certificates issued by AIIMS and Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and further direct payment of the accrued arrears in accordance with the disability percentage of the Petitioner from 21.06.2002 till the date of disposal of the present petition along with interest @ 12%. The Petitioner was enrolled in Navy in 1965 and he served the Navy till 1973. He had taken part in Indo Pak War in 1971. It is alleged that during the service, Petitioner suffered a head injury when there was a sudden burst of steam pipe with very high pressure and temperature...
Tag this Judgment!