Back
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, AMIT BANSAL
Rohit Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - C.M.Nos.17048/2021 & 17049/2021(both for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions and as per extant Rules.
2. The applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 5503/2021 & C.M. No.17047/2021(for stay)
3. The petition impugns the order dated 17th May, 2021 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, of, while admitting the OA 890/2021 preferred by the petitioner impugning the order dated 5th April, 2021 of his discharge from the respondents Indian Navy (on the ground of having got inducted into the respondents Indian Navy by playing fraud), dismissing the application of the petitioner for interim relief of stay of the discharge order, observing that "keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations, we do not deem it appropriate at this stage to stay the discharge order".
4. We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, how can there be an interim stay of the order of discharge of the petitioner from service inasmuch as the same cannot be undone in the event of the OA of the petitioner being ultimately dismissed; on the contrary, if the OA ultimately succeeds, the petitioner can be restored to the same position as wo
The seriousness of allegations, balance of equities, and implications of granting interim relief were central to the court's decision.
Interim relief against discharge orders in serious misconduct cases cannot be granted to avoid potential irreversibility and usurpation of public office.
Interim orders cannot allow individuals to occupy public office unlawfully; courts must balance equities when considering such requests.
Interim relief in employment cases must demonstrate established rights, especially when addressing personnel policies within defense services.
Service Law - Grant of Permanent Commission - The government has not sanctioned Permanent Commission posts in ATC cadre and officers in ATC cadre are appointed on SSC.
The court declined to interfere in the discharge order as the issue was pending before the Armed Forces Tribunal and the discharge was subject to the final decision.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Army Act provisions, especially paragraph 28, and its influence on the court's decision regarding reinstatement.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
