MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Brig Sk Gupta Retd MR04965-P – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. - The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the attachment order dated 16th august, 2021 which allegedly has never been served upon the Petitioner and the conveying letter dated 30th December, 2021. Petitioner also challenges the apprehension roll dated 06th January, 2022 and seeks a direction to the Respondents to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as damages to the Petitioner for violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that vide impugned apprehension roll dated 06th January 2022, the Respondents have ordered coercive apprehension of the Petitioner, with the aid of civil police officers. She emphasises that on 09th January 2022, over ten Military Police personnel forced their way into the Petitioner's house, when Delhi was under a weekend COVID-19 curfew and intimidated the Petitioner's wife in full view of the housing society, in the Petitioner's absence.
4. She states that the Petitioner is a sixty-year old retired army officer with an unblemished record of service since the date of his commissioning i.e. 02nd January,
The principle of not pursuing two parallel proceedings at the same time and avoiding forum shopping.
Writ petitions cannot proceed if parallel proceedings are initiated in a competent forum, as it leads to forum shopping and abuse of legal process.
The plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, and the jurisdiction and power to attach a person against whom disciplinary proceedings are contemplated are enshrined in the army act and ....
Jurisdiction in military trials requires adherence to statutory limitations; disciplinary attachments are justified to preserve the integrity of proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and its applicability to service matters in the India....
Jurisdiction over service matters and attachment orders lies primarily with the Armed Forces Tribunal; the High Court only intervenes in exceptional cases.
A petition dismissed as similar issues were pending with the Armed Forces Tribunal; rights to further challenge retained for new grievances.
The court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to deal with matters of exigent nature when the Armed Forces Tribunal is not functioning.
Writ petitions may be dismissed due to delay and laches, emphasizing the necessity for timely action and the provision that 'delay defeats equity.'
Natural justice principles are context-specific, and evaluated alongside admissions of guilt, cannot undermine disciplinary actions in military jurisdictions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.