Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Saurabh Banerjee, JJ.
Rajnish Bhandari - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 12202 of 2023
Decided On : 18-03-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. transfer of case to high court (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background and initial actions of the petitioner (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. enquiry and allegations against the petitioner (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. supreme court's involvement in proceedings (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. arguments regarding evidence and gcm process (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. negligence and information disclosure (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. non-application of mind and legal procedures by aft (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. legal principles reiteration by defense (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 9. respondents' counterarguments (Para 35 , 36) |
| 10. security implications in the case (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 11. findings of the court martial (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 12. judicial review limitations (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 13. implications of evidential findings (Para 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 14. assessment of legal argument validity (Para 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 15. reaffirmation of proceedings legitimacy (Para 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 16. final ruling and case dismissal (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. - This is a petition which was filed as Criminal Appeal 438/2023 before the Supreme Court against order dated December 07, 2022, of the Armed Force Tribunal ('AFT', for short) which has been transferred by the Supreme Court to this Court vide the order dated July 11, 2023, and signed order dated September 01, 2023, passed in MA No.1826/2023 in Criminal Appeal 438/2023, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Purushotam Dass, in Civil Appeal No. 447/2023. The orders dated July 11, 2023 and September 01, 2023, are reproduced as under:
"Dated July 11, 2023
1. The instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the order dated 07.12.2022 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA (Appeal) No.261 of 2021.
2. In view of the recent decision rendered by this Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Parashotam Dass, 2023 SCC Online SC 314, the appellant has an efficacious alternative remedy to assail the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. Since the appellant is currently posted in Delhi and learned counsel for the respondents also does not oppose it, let this Criminal Appeal be transferred to the High Court of Delhi for being registered as a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The records of the appeal be transferred to the High Court forthwith.
4. The parties are directed to appear before the High Court of Delhi on 17.08.2023.
5. Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi is requested to assign the matter to a Division Bench for final hearing.
6. In view of the fact that the pleadings are complete and the appellant is left with hardly three years' in service the High Court is requested to decide the matter expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
7. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly."
"Dated September 1, 2023
1. Perused the Office Report for direction dated 18.08.2023.
2. As per the Office Report, the Order dated 11.07.2023, passed in Criminal Appeal No.438 of 2023, transferring the said appeal for adjudication by the High Court of Delhi, under Article 226 of the Constitution, could not be communicated to the High Court due to oversight. The records of the abovementioned appeal have also not been transferred to the High Court.
3. The Registry is, accordingly, directed to transfer the records of the appeal forthwith to the Delhi High Court along with a copy of the order dated 11.07.2023.
4. MA No.1826 of 2023 stands disposed of accordingly. "
2. The Armed Force Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi decided the Original Application Appeal ('OA (Appeal)', for short) being O.A (Appeal) No. 261/2021 on December 07, 2022, wherein the plea of the petitioner for setting aside the or
The sharing of sensitive information by a military officer, jeopardizing security, constitutes willful negligence warranting reprimand, regardless of prior findings of not guilty.
The court affirmed the principle that judicial review of administrative actions in disciplinary processes is limited to procedural correctness, not evidential review, and mandated reconsideration of ....
Termination of service is permissible under Section 10 of the Border Security Force Act when the trial is deemed impracticable or inexpedient, especially after non-confirmation of charges by the Conf....
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts cannot reappraise evidence or substitute their judgment unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
In departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probabilities, and the court will not interfere with the disciplinary authority's findings unless there is a clear ....
The High Court does not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters and will not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is shocking to the conscience.
Judicial review under Article 226 is applicable to court-martial proceedings, ensuring protection of fundamental rights and addressing jurisdictional errors.
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
