The court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's refusal for interim relief, emphasizing that lawful disciplinary proceedings must be respected, allowing potential reinstatement post-exoneration as per military regulations.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

CM APPL.12237/2022 & 12238/2022

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The applications are disposed of accordingly.

W.P.(C) 4107/2022 & CM APPL.12236/2022

3. The present petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying as follows:

"a) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ/Order/Direction, thereby quashing the Impugned Order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Armed Forces Tribunal in O.A. No. 276/2022 vide which the Petitioner was declined interim relief to maintain status quo while the Ld Tribunal was deciding the legality of the impugned order dated 20.01.2022 impugned before the Ld Tribunal by the Petitioner;

b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Ld Tribunal decide the pending Original Application No. 276/2022 as expeditiously as possible.

c) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 02.03.2022 passed by learned Armed Forces Tribunal in O.A. No.276/2022 whereby her application seeking interim stay of order dated 20.01.2022 issued by the respondents directing her to be released from service w.e.f. 19.03.2022, has been rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the prayers made before the learned Tribunal, which read as under:

"(a) Call for the records based on which the Respondents have conducted the Court of Inquiry at such a belated stage and finalized the same in violation of Rule 180 by blaming the Applicant by issuing direction of disciplinary action, putting her under DV Ban unnecessarily and ordering her attachment vide impugned order dated 21.05.2021 ignoring the statutory bar under Section 122 of the Army Act as well as the order dated 20.01.2022 passed on the basis of DV Ban thereby releasing the Applicant from service w.e.f. 19.03.2022 even though the Application has been found fit and orders were required to be issued for her PC latest by 17.05.2020 on which date the Applicant was free from any DV Ban and thereafter quash all such orders including the order of DV Ban as well as order dated 21.05.2021 and 20.01.2022.

(b) Issue further directions to the Respondents to relieve the Applicant from the consequences of such direction of disciplinary actions and by lifting DV Ban etc and direct the Respondents to issue orders for PC with all consequential benefits.

(c) Issue necessary directions even otherwise to apply the criteria of DV which is required to be seen after the no. 5 SB has already found the Applicant fit before issuance of order for PC irrespective of present DV status in the same way as required in case of Medical Category as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of 5th/10th year of service (In case of the Applicant 5h year when she was not under any such DV Ban).

(d) Issue such other order/direction as may be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case."

6. Issue notice.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents, appearing on advance copy, accepts notice.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has drawn the attention of this court to the allegations pending against the petitioner in the tentative charge sheet dated 14.08.2021 issued to her, which reads as under:

"TENTATIVE CHARGE-SHEET

The accused, WS-00281F, Lieutenant Colonel Nandita Satpathy, Bombay Engineer Group and Centre, Kirkee, attached to 10 Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry, an officer holding a Short Service Commission in the regular Army, is charged with: