Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The petitioner stands convicted by Summary Court Martial vide Order dated 28.12.2001 awarding him punishment of one years rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this case certain facts need to be stated. 2. The petitioner was enrolled in the regular army as a combatant soldier on 20.02.1998. After completion of his military training he was attested on 14.04.1999 at Bangalore. He was posted to 10 Para on 16.06.1999 for commando course. Having failed to complete the commando course, he was sent back to Bangalore Para Centre in the month of October 1999. He reported to Admn Coy Office of Para Bn on 21.04.2000 and was sent for Para jumping course for one month. 3. The petitioner was detailed for guard duty on 25.08.2000 alongwith six Jawan,s Guard Commander Hav Gian Singh and Asstt. Guard Commander L/Nk Ramesh Chander. He was on duty from 2400 hrs to 0200 hrs on 26.08.2000. Rifle Butt Nos.173 and 170 were issued to Hav Gian S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
R.C. Mishra Member (J): 1. By virtue of section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, brought into force w.e.f. 07.08. 2009, this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pending before the High Court of Delhi, stood transferred to this Tribunal. It was filed on 20th April, 2009 for issuance of (i) a writ/order in the nature of Mandamus commanding respondent no.1 to treat the petitioner as having continued in service with all consequential benefits and (ii) a writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned proceedings of SCM (Summary Court Martial) and the documents connected therewith including the order dated 02.11.2008,passed by the respondent no. 1,rejecting the petitioners Statutory complaint, under Section 164(2) of the Army Act,1950. 2. Background facts may be summarized as under:- The petitioner was enrolled as Signalman in the Indian Army. At the relevant point of time, he was serving in 14 Rapid Signal Regiment. On 21.03.2007,he was tried and convicted on his p...
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
1. This is an application seeking clarification of judgment dated 17.04.2014 passed by this Tribunal. It is stated that in para 24 of the judgment while considering the issue regarding holding of successive court of inquiry the court has observed as under: œTherefore, we hold that ordering of successive courts of inquiry is illegal, arbitrary and smacks of foul play and malafide on the part of the respondents?. 2. However, while allowing the petition, the court of inquiry ordered against the petitioner has not been set aside. 3. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that the allowing of the application will tantamount to review of the judgment which can not be permitted in the present case unless there is a proper application. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. While scanning through the para 24 of the judgment, we have clearly found that ordering of successive courts of inquiry in the present case is illegal, arbitrary and smacks of foul play a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
R.C. Mishra, Member, (J): 1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was filed before the High Court of Delhi as far back as on 17th July, 1992 for issuance of an appropriate writ/direction/order (i) declaring that the punishment of œSevere Displeasure? of AOC-in-C, Western Air Command for a period of 18 months w. e. f. 25th November 1991, awarded to the petitioner vide order No. WAC/C-2801/5/P1 dated 03-12-1991 was illegal and liable to be set aside and; (ii) mandating the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Gp Capt afresh, after expunging the œsevere displeasure? remark from his service record and in case he was found suitable for promotion, to promote him retrospectively to the rank of Gp Capt with all consequential benefits including original seniority as against his batchmates. 2. Background facts , which are practically undisputed, may be summarized as under:- A. At the relevant point of time the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
R.C. Mishra, Member (J): 1. This is titled as an application under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, calling in question the order dated 8th April 2013,passed by AOC in C (training)Command, rejecting the pre-confirmation appeal under Rule 16(1) of the Air Force Rules, 1969.But, in essence and substance, it is an appeal against the order passed by District Court Martial at Air Force Station, Hakimpet on 25th February,2013 convicting the applicant, of the offences punishable under Sections 52(a) and 71 of the Air Force Act 1950 and imposing sentences of Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and dismissal from service. 2. The prosecution story, in short, may be narrated as under: - A. On 1st May 2012,finding the Syndicate Bank ATM cum Debit Card no. 4033983022319545 ( for brevity ?ATM Card?) missing, Complainant Mohit Kumar (PW-1) informed the Customer Care Department of the Bank about non-traceability thereof. Since the Bank was closed on that day, it was on the 2nd May, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Short grievance of the petitioner is that he was convicted by the GCM and punishment of dismissal was awarded with one years R.I. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before this Tribunal, being T.A. No. 726 of 2009, which was allowed, vide order dated 23.09.2009 and conviction of the petitioner was set aside. A direction was issued that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been discharged from service from the date of dismissal. The order stands complied with by the respondents. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only impediment in the way of the petitioner for grant of Honorary Commission was the conviction recorded by the GCM. The order of conviction having been set aside, therefore, he has a right to be considered for grant of honorary commission after his retirement. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner has not completed the tenure of his service as he was deemed to have been discharged w.e.f. 28.05.1999 whereas t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Heard on MA No.167/2014, which is an application u/s 15 (6)(e) of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. 2. This OA has been preferred against the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the GCM whereby the applicant was convicted u/s 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short POCSO), 2012 read with Section 69 of Army Act, 1950 (on two counts) and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years. However, the confirming authority has reduced the period of custodial sentence to five years. 3. Allegations as found proved against the applicant, in short, are that, he had subjected the prosecutrix, a girl aged about five years, to sexual assault with his hand as well as tongue. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that none of the accusations was made out in view of the following facts: (i) Delay of four days in reporting the matter to the concerned authority; (ii) Inherent lack of jurisdiction of GCM to try the offence und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
The petitioner seeks grant of Honorary rank after his retirement from service. His contention is that the respondents have not adhered to the policy issued on 06.04.2004 whereby the service rendered by the petitioner in Lebanon was declared as active field service for which weightage was required to be given. It is further contended that ground of non consideration of this service rendered by the petitioner in Lebanon has affected his right for conferring Honorary rank on him. The stand of the respondents is that the order dated 06.04.2004 is a detailment letter and not a policy letter. The letter does provide that the service rendered by the petitioner in Lebanon would be considered as active field service. However, by virtue of a policy issued in 2009, the service rendered in UN will not be given weightage for the purpose of considering Honorary rank. Even if the weightage is given to the petitioner for the said service, he does not make the grade. We have heard the learned counsel f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
This case was listed before this Court in terms of the order passed by the Chairperson on 03.10.2013. A prayer was made by the respondents for vacation of the interim order dated 7th May, 2013. No orders were passed on the said date in view of the fact that the petitioner was not present. The matter was listed on 05.02.2014. On 05.02.2014 also, the petitioner was not present. It was observed in the order dated 05.02.2014 that despite the service of notice on the petitioner, he was not present. An application was moved by the petitioner to the Principal Registrar, AFT, Principal Bench, New Delhi requesting for adjournment of the matter. While seeking adjournment, the petitioner sought intervention of the Court on the following counts: (a) Temporary duty move sanction from Guwahati to Delhi and back or (b) Attachment to Delhi by MS Branch, or (c) Grant of leavy by GOC 51 Sub Area. The prayer was declined by this Court and he was advised to seek redressal from the concerned authority in t...
Tag this Judgment!