Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Wg Cdr Ravi Khandelwal Af 29434 F Med - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 3280 of 2022
Decided On : 23-02-2022
Judicial Review - Armed Forces Tribunal - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking modification of the release order of a Short Service Commission Medical officer, emphasizing the distinct jurisdiction of a writ court under article 226 of the Constitution and the power of judicial review. The court found that the Armed Forces Tribunal had the power to balance equities at the final stage and that the writ court's jurisdiction is to correct errors of jurisdiction or errors apparent on the face of the record.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought modification of the release order directing the petitioner's release from service with effect from a specific date.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Armed Forces Tribunal had the power to balance equities at the final stage and that the writ court's jurisdiction is to correct errors of jurisdiction or errors apparent on the face of the record.
Issues: The issue was whether the release order of the Short Service Commission Medical officer should be modified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinct jurisdiction of a writ court under article 226 of the Constitution and the power of judicial review, and found that the Armed Forces Tribunal had the power to balance equities at the final stage.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition seeking modification of the release order.
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. - C.M.No.9540/2022
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.3280/2022 & C.M.No.9539/2022
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking modification of the order dated 10th November, 2021 passed by armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.a. No.2393 of 2021. The Petitioner in effect seeks stay on the release order dated 28th September 2021 which directs the Petitioner's release from service with effect from the 24th april, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was inducted as a Short Service Commission Medical officer on 25th april, 2008. He states that the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1480/2020 titled Cdr T Rajkumar Versus Union Of India & another has directed the armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi to consider the issue relating to the grant of Permanent Commission in view of the existing vacancies in the army Medical Corps.
4. He points out that the Respondents have overlooked the substantial number of existing vacancies and issued a release order dated 28th September, 2021 whereby the Petitioner will be released from service w.e.f. the afternoon of 24th april, 2022.
5. This Court finds that the aFT in the impugned order has held that the release of the Petitioner shall be subject to the final decision in the Oa. This Court is of the view that the Tribunal has adequate power to mould the relief as well as balance the equities at final stage.
6. Further, it is settled law that the jurisdiction of a writ Court under article 226 of the Constitution is vastly different and distinct from that of an appellate Court. The Writ Court while examining the JUDGMENT passed by the Tribunal, will exercise the power of judicial review which means that the Court shall examine the decision-making process and interfere only for correcting errors of jurisdiction or errors apparent on the face of record or if the Tribunal acts illegally. (See: Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Syed ahmad Ishaque and Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 1104; Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 675 and Rajendra Diwan vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala and anr. (2019) 20 SCC 143.)
7. Consequently, the impugned order calls for no interference in writ jurisdiction. accordingly, the present writ petition along with pending application is dismissed.
The distinct jurisdiction of a writ court under article 226 of the Constitution and the power of judicial review.
Writ courts under Article 226 have a distinct jurisdiction, limited to correcting jurisdictional errors in Tribunal decisions, thus reaffirming the principle of judicial review without substituting t....
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 court upheld the AFT's decision to deny relief based on adverse ACR entries despite previous outstanding performance ratings, emphasizing the necessity of diligent assessment in statutory complai....
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.
The court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's refusal for interim relief, emphasizing that lawful disciplinary proceedings must be respected, allowing potential reinstatement post-exoneration as per m....
The court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's decision to deny the petitioner a Permanent Commission based on self-reported adverse assessments, highlighting the need for a timely resolution of statut....
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
