Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Ravi Khandelwal AF 29434 F Med (WG CDR) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. modification of service release order challenged. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. writ jurisdiction standards differ from appellate review. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. writ petition dismissed; no interference warranted. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J.: (Oral)
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
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 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 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....
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.
Interim orders cannot allow individuals to occupy public office unlawfully; courts must balance equities when considering such requests.
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
