Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
JC-843425n Sub (clk) Sanjay Rathore – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 3692 of 2023, CM APPL. 14276 of 2023
Decided On : 24-03-2023
Exemption - Writ Petition - The court disposed of the application seeking exemption and the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought to challenge a discharge order, but the court declined to interfere as the issue was pending before the Armed Forces Tribunal and the discharge was subject to the final decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge a discharge order, but the court declined to interfere as the issue was pending before the Armed Forces Tribunal and the discharge was subject to the final decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issue raised in the petition was pending before the Armed Forces Tribunal, and the discharge of the petitioner was subject to the final decision. Therefore, the court declined to interfere in the order of the Tribunal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should interfere in the discharge order when the issue was pending before the Armed Forces Tribunal and the discharge was subject to the final decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided not 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.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition and the pending application, as the issue raised was pending before the Armed Forces Tribunal and the discharge was subject to the final decision.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
CM APPL.14277/2023 (Seeking Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3692/2023
3. A Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"(i) To allow the petition and stay the impugned discharge order discharge order CA-l/1612/SA/DO/Ser190/2022/1706/SMDPC/2022 dated 14 Dec 2022 and Pass such other and further orders/directions to the Respondents in the attendant genuine circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice.
(ii) Pass any other proper and just order as may deem fit and in the interest of justice."
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on advance Notice submits that similar prayer is pending before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). However, he has not challenged in the present petition the Order dated 15.03.2023 whereby the interim relief has been declined by the learned Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner today submits that he has moved an application to amend the prayer to challenge the aforementioned Order passed by the learned Tribunal.
6. On perusal of the impugned Order we find that the discharge of the petitioner has been directed to be subject to the final decision.
7. The present petition was listed yesterday before this Court and we asked the respondents to take instructions as to why his extension which was extended up to March, 2025 has been withdrawn.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that since there was a conviction in his credit of the year 1995, therefore, he was not eligible for the extension. However, inadvertently the extension had been granted, which now stands revoked vide impugned Discharge Order dated 14.12.2022.
9. In view of the above, since the issue raised in the present petition is pending before the learned Tribunal and learned Tribunal has clarified that discharge of the petitioner shall be subject to the final decision, we are not inclined to interfere in the said order of learned Tribunal.
10. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
11. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
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.
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 distinct jurisdiction of a writ court under article 226 of the Constitution and the power of judicial review.
The seriousness of allegations, balance of equities, and implications of granting interim relief were central to the court's decision.
The High Court may dismiss petitions rendered moot by subsequent actions, allowing parties to seek remedies in appropriate forums.
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
