Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 1437
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Asha Menon, JJ.
Group Captain Suman Roy Chowdhury - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8313 of 2020, 8320 of 2020; Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 26934 of 2020, 26936 of 2020, 26977 of 2020, 26979 of 2020
Decided On : 05-11-2020
Ankur Chhibber, Advocate, Syed Hussain Adil Taqvi, Advocate, Atul Kumar, Advocate, Vikram Jetly, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings and the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Headnote:
Court of Inquiry - Air Force Act, 1950 - Regulation 790, Rule 156 - The court discussed the entitlement of the petitioners to inspect the entire Court of Inquiry (CoI) proceedings, including the classified portion, based on which charges against them were framed. The court also considered the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings and the limited intervention of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court referred to the parameters for judicial review of departmental proceedings as laid down by the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Arora and emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases. The court also highlighted the need for expeditious resolution of special disputes and cautioned against stalling proceedings with preliminary objections. The court further discussed the discretion of the Chief of Air Staff in deciding on the supply of CoI copies under Rule 156(7) and the mandatory obligation under Rule 156(8). The court emphasized that the proceedings under Rule 24 had been deferred and the CoI was a general inquiry, not under Rule 24. The court echoed the Supreme Court's stance on the premature nature of challenging a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet and emphasized the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The court concluded that no case was made out to take a view different from that of the learned AFT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitions were filed against the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) regarding the Court of Inquiry (CoI) proceedings initiated after an air accident at Srinagar Air Force Station. The petitioners sought the supply of the entire CoI proceedings and challenged the findings and opinion of the CoI.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no ground to interfere with the orders of the learned AFT or restrain the respondents from proceeding with the follow-up to the CoI proceedings. The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings and the need for adherence to principles of natural justice. The court also highlighted the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and the premature nature of challenging a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of the petitioners to inspect the entire CoI proceedings, the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, and the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited intervention of the court under Article 226 in disciplinary proceedings and the need for adherence to principles of natural justice. The court also highlighted the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and the premature nature of challenging a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions, concluding that no case was made out to take a view different from that of the learned AFT.
JUDGMENT
Asha Menon, J. - These two writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the common orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) dated 9th October, 2020 and therefore the two petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The facts as are relevant for the disposal of the present petitions, in brief, are that almost contemporaneous to the Indian Air Force air strike at Balakot, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, in the early hours of 26th February, 2019, an air accident took place on 27th February, 2019, at Srinagar Air Force Station in which an Air Force Mi 17 Chopper was completely destroyed and six officers of the Indian Air Force and one civilian lost their lives. A Court of Inquiry (CoI) was constituted in accordance with the Air Force Act, 1950 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder.
3. Both the petitioners were notified under Regulation 790 of the Air Force Regulations, firstly under Regulation 790(a),(b),(c) and subsequently also under Regulation 790(e). At this point, both the petitioners sought the supply of the copies of the entire proceedings of the CoI. A Signal was issued in respect of petitioner Wg Cdr Shyam Naithani dated 16th January, 2020 communicated vide letter dated 22nd January, 2020 regarding his attachment for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. He approached the learned AFT with Original Application bearing O.A. No.211/2020 seeking the setting aside of the said Signal/order as well as the supply of the entire proceedings of the CoI qua the accident. A similar Signal dated 23rd January, 2020 was issued for the attachment of Gp Capt. Suman Roy Chowdhury for disciplinary proceedings. He filed O.A. No.212/2020 before the learned AFT for the setting aside of the said order as well as directions to the respondents to supply to him the entire proceedings of the CoI to investigate the air accident. Separate orders were passed on 29th January, 2020 in these Applications recording therein that the decision was yet to be taken by the Chief of Air Staff on the requests made by the petitioners for supply of the CoI proceedings and initiation of the proceedings under Rule 24 had been deferred for the time being. For good measure the learned AFT also passed the following order in both the Applications:
"We make it clear that the provisions of sub-Rule (8) of Rule 156 should be complied with by the respondents in its letter and spirit."
4. It appears that both these O.As. No. 211/2020 & 212/2020 came up for hearing before the learned AFT on 9th September, 2020. Orders in the following words were passed in both the Applications separately:
"3. We find that accordingly, the applicant is entitled to be supplied a copy of the unclassified portion of the CoI. Further, he is entitled to inspect the entire CoI proceedings, including classified portion, based on which charges against him have been framed. The respondents have, in their reply as also in the letter dated 13.08.2020, expressed their willingness to make available the CoI proceedings for inspection by the applicant and have suggested timings for the same during the hearing today.
4. With these observations, the O.A is disposed of directing the respondents that the CoI proceedings in entirety, including classified portion, be made available for inspection by the applicant at 11.00 a.m. on 11.09.2020 and on two subsequent working days viz. 12.09.2020 and 14.09.2020, as required."
5. On the same day, the petitioners filed two fresh O.As. bearing Nos. 1209/2020 (on behalf of Wg Cdr Shyam Naithani) and 1210/2020 (on behalf of Gp Capt. Suman Roy Chowdhury) with the following identical prayers:
"RELIEF(S) SOUGHT
In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned and the grounds raised in this O.A., the Applicant humbly prays that this Hon''ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the present application by passing the following orders and directions:
a. Quash the Court of Inquiry proceedings convened pursuant to
