1. Petition under Article 32 challenging suspension orders and seeking return of digital assets under the Army Act, 1950 and Army Rules, 1954. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1547
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Col. Vineet Raman Sharda & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 448 of 2022
Decided On : 14-07-2022
Important Points
The court established that under the Army Act and the Army Rules, petitioners can be suspended pending the Court of Inquiry without the requirement of affording them an opportunity of hearing.
Subject
Administrative Law - Military Law
Act Referred
Headnote
Suspension Orders - Army Act, 1950 and Army Rules, 1954 - The court held that the petitioners can be suspended pending the Court of Inquiry without the requirement of affording them an opportunity of hearing. The petitioners' case shall be dealt with in accordance with law and after following due procedure as required under the Army Act and the Rules made therein.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the suspension orders passed against them and requested the return of confiscated digital assets, privacy certificate, stay on the suspension orders, compensation for mental agony, and litigation expenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioners can be suspended pending the Court of Inquiry without the need for an opportunity of hearing. The petitioners' case shall be dealt with in accordance with law and after following due procedure as required under the Army Act and the Rules made therein.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the suspension orders passed against the petitioners and the requirement of affording them an opportunity of hearing before suspension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under the relevant provisions of the Army Act and the Army Rules, the petitioners can be suspended pending the Court of Inquiry without the need for an opportunity of hearing. The petitioners' case shall be dealt with in accordance with law and after following due procedure as required under the Army Act and the Rules made therein.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and pending application(s) were disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
Col. Amit Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Advocate, Mr. Omkar J. Deshpande, Advocate, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Rohan Wadhwa, Advocate, Ms. Pooja Sharma, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. K.M.Nataraj, ASG, Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Nuli, Advocate, Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Advocate, Mr. N. Mahapatra, Advocate, Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udaya, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Digvijay D., Advocate, For the Respondent.
Col. Amit Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Advocate, Mr. Omkar J. Deshpande, Advocate, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Rohan Wadhwa, Advocate, Ms. Pooja Sharma, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. K.M.Nataraj, ASG, Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Nuli, Advocate, Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Advocate, Mr. N. Mahapatra, Advocate, Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udaya, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Digvijay D., Advocate, For the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claim suspension without a hearing is illegal; Respondent contends suspension is permissible pending a Court of Inquiry due to serious allegations. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. The court found that the Army Act, Army Rules, and Regulation 349 do not require a hearing before suspending personnel pending a Court of Inquiry. (Para 4 )
4. Personnel can be suspended pending a Court of Inquiry without a prior opportunity of hearing under the Army Act, 1950 and Army Rules, 1954. (Para 4 )
5. Petition dismissed, with the direction that the case be dealt with in accordance with the law and due procedure under the Army Act and Rules. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. Is a prior hearing mandatory before suspending personnel pending a Court of Inquiry under the Army Act and Rules?
No, the court held that neither the Army Act, 1950, the Army Rules, 1954, nor Regulation 349 require an opportunity of hearing to be afforded before suspending personnel pending a Court of Inquiry. (Para 4 )
7. What is the legal requirement for dealing with personnel suspended pending a Court of Inquiry?
While suspension pending a Court of Inquiry is permissible without a prior hearing, the personnel's case must be dealt with in accordance with the law and following the due procedure required under the Army Act and the Rules made therein. (Para 4 )
ORDER
1. By way of this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs-
"A. Issue Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the illegal, unlawful and arbitrary Suspension Orders passed against the Petitioners;
B. Issue Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of Mandamus to return all the digital assets of the Petitioners which has been confiscated in wrong manner and without his consent;
C. Issue Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of Mandamus to issue a certificate of privacy in favour of the Applicant stating that no information/report will be disclosed in public domain;
D. pending hearing and till final disposal of this Writ Petition, the effect, operation and implementation of the impugned Suspension orders dated 08.05.2022 and 17.05.2022 respectively may kindly be stayed;
E. Issue Writ, Order, or Direction for grant of compensation for mental agony and embarrassment faced by the petitioner officers and to grant litigation expenses;
F. To pass such other and further orders which their lordships may deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relying upon relevant provisions of the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954 has vehemently submitted that by suspending the petitioners, the petitioners can be said to be under open arrest'. It is also the case on behalf of the petitioners that before passing the impugned order of suspension, no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioners. Reliance is placed upon Regulation 349 also.
3. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General who has appeared on caveat, has submitted that there are very serious allegations against the petitioners and, therefore, pending the Court of Inquiry, the petitioners have been suspended. He has stated at the Bar that the Court of Inquiry has been constituted and the petitioners' case shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
4. Having heard learned counsel for petitioners and Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General and having gone through the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules, we do not accept the submissions on behalf of the petitioners that before suspending the petitioners pending the Court of Inquiry, an opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded to the petitioners. Even under Regulation 349 also, there is no requirement of such a procedure to be followed. The petitioners can be suspended pending the Court of Inquiry, which as stated by Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General has already been constituted and inquiry is going on. In that view of the matter, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief at this stage pending proceedings before the Court of Inquiry, as claimed in the present petition. However, it is observed that the petitioners case shall be dealt with in accordance with law and after following due procedure as required under the Army Act and the Rules made therein.
5. With this, the present petition stands dismissed
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
