Back
2011 Supreme(Del) 669
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANIL KUMAR & SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
Signalman Kripa Shankar Tiwari …. Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. …. Respondents
W.P.(C) No.8526/2011
Decided on : 05.12.2011
Dr. H.B.Mishra, Advocate.
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate.
The importance of timely challenges to legal matters and the dismissal of petitions due to delay and latches.
Headnote:
Army Act - Summary Court Martial - Section 64(c) - Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, JT 2011 (1) SC 83
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Signalman in the Army, challenged the Summary Court Martial (SCM) against him under Section 64(c) of the Army Act, resulting in imprisonment and dismissal. He claimed to be of unsound mind during the alleged offences and contended that the proceedings were in violation of rules and regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition on the grounds of delay and latches, citing precedents that emphasize challenging matters before they attain finality. The petitioner's delay of over two decades in filing the petition was not justified, and no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was presented.
Issues: Delay and latches in filing the petition, violation of rules and regulations in the Summary Court Martial proceedings, and the petitioner's claim of unsoundness of mind during the alleged offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of timely challenges to legal matters and cited precedents to support the dismissal of the petition due to delay and latches. It also highlighted that the petitioner's delay of over two decades was not justified and no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was presented.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it lacked merit and did not demonstrate any irregularity or illegality in the order of the Tribunal. Each party was left to bear their own costs.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
1. The petitioner, has challenged the order dated 1st April, 2011 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench in T.A No.481/2009 titled as „K.S.Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors? dismissing his petition seeking quashing of the Summary Court Martial (SCM) against the petitioner, whereby he was held guilty of having committed the offence under Section 64(c) of the Army Act and the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment in civil prison and his dismissal from the service. The Tribunal also rejected his pray for directing the respondents to hold a Military Medical Review Board to medically examine the petitioner so as to make the consequential recommendation to reinstate the petitioner.
2. The petitioner had joined the Army as Signalman on 2nd July, 1970 in the medical category AYE. The petitioner had completed the training at First Military Training Course, Jabalpur, M.P and was posted at 86, Infantry Brigade at the time of Indo-Pak war in 1970-71. Later on, the petitioner was posted to 4 T.T.R Jabalpur (M.P) for operator, Radio Key Board Training for advancement of service and on completion of the training he was posted to 1st Armoured Division Signal Regiment, Jhansi (M.P). In the course of his duties the petitioner was moved from Jhansi to Ambala.
3. The petitioner contended that after the demise of his father a property dispute had arisen in his family with his uncle who had a dishonest intention towards his share of the property and, therefore, he had sought discharge from the service when he was posted at Ambala. However, his plea for discharge from service was declined. Thereafter, the petitioner again sought discharge on compassionate grounds and also gave various reminders. The petitioner was however, not discharged from the service.
4. According to the petitioner, he had submitted another application for discharge during October/November, 1973 which infuriated his seniors and he was abused, beaten and tortured by the Unit Subedar Major on 3rd March, 1974. The petitioner was also produced before his Commanding Officer who instead of considering his grievances called him a mad man and had sent him to the Unit doctor for medical examination where he was forcibly administered medicines, injections and electric shocks. The petitioner was, thereafter hospitalized in the Mental Ward of Command Hospital, Chandigarh. There he was kept under psychiatric treatment and observation from 19th November, 1974 up to 7th December, 1974. On account of the petitioner’s medical condition he was placed on lower medical category of CEE by a Medical Board for six months from his earlier medical category of AYE.
5. The petitioner contended that after his release from the Mental Ward on 7th March, 1975 he was produced before his Commanding Officer. A Summary Court Martial was held in which he was sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment in civil prison and he was also dismissed from service. The punishment awarded to the petitioner was communicated by letter dated 7th March, 1975 to his wife Smt. Lalita Tiwari at village and Post Office Garhmalpur, Thana Ratsar, District Balia (U.P). The petitioner contended that he was not supplied any chargesheet, nor was any reasonable opportunity given to him to defend himself and in any case since he was in a state of unsound mind and had been placed in a lower category, therefore, he could not be tried by the Summary Court Martial.
6. The petitioner pleaded that the copy of the chargesheet and Court Martial proceedings were not provided to his wife, who had also made various representations. Certificate of service was, however, forwarded to wife of the petitioner stating, inter alia, that (i) “Dismissed from service on 7th March, 1975 in consequence of Summary Court Martial” and also (ii) “Not eligible for further employment for Government Services”.
7. The petitioner, thereafter, allegedly made various representations, however, he did not receive any respo
