Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
SK Gupta Retd. MR04965-P – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. attachment and coercive actions against the petitioner (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. hearing before the aft on similar relief (Para 8) |
| 3. limitation on disciplinary proceedings and forum shopping (Para 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. dismissal of writ petition with liberty for further action (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (ORAL)--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
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 principle of not pursuing two parallel proceedings at the same time and avoiding forum shopping.
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 over service matters and attachment orders lies primarily with the Armed Forces Tribunal; the High Court only intervenes in exceptional cases.
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....
Natural justice principles are context-specific, and evaluated alongside admissions of guilt, cannot undermine disciplinary actions in military jurisdictions.
Writ petitions may be dismissed due to delay and laches, emphasizing the necessity for timely action and the provision that 'delay defeats equity.'
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.
The court established that under the Army Act and the Army Rules, petitioners can be suspended pending the Court of Inquiry without the requirement of affording them an opportunity of hearing.
In matters of military discipline, courts are generally reluctant to interfere with disciplinary punishments unless the sentence is deemed grossly disproportionate, especially where the petitioner ha....
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
