Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JWO RK Jaiswal Edn Instr – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to aft order and dismissal process (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dispute over dismissal order receipt (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. petition deemed infructuous post-dismissal (Para 5) |
| 4. petition and applications disposed (Para 6) |
1. By way of present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 04.10.2021 passed by AFT(PB) New Delhi in OA 2052/2021, the COI proceedings and consequent show cause notice dated 29.06.2021 issued by respondent no.2.
2. Invoking the jurisdiction of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, petitioner has filed OA No.2052/2021 under Section 14 of the AFT Act challenging the show cause notice issued to him vide communication dated 29.06.2021, however, vide order dated 04.10.2021, the said application was disposed of with the direction to the competent authority to allow inspection of the entire court inquiry proceedings and the report of the same would be submitted within three days. Petitioner was also permitted to make notes after perusing the proceedings and thereafter petitioner shall file his reply to the show cause notice within one week. On receipt of the reply, resp
The High Court may dismiss petitions rendered moot by subsequent actions, allowing parties to seek remedies in appropriate forums.
Dismissal of service without due notice violates principles of natural justice, warranting reconsideration.
The court established that procedural fairness requires a party to have a full opportunity to present their case, without being bound by prior prejudicial findings during ongoing proceedings.
A court may exercise its writ jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to a show cause notice when the alternative statutory remedy before a tribunal is temporarily inaccessible due to the lack of a pre....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while writ petitions under Article 226 are maintainable against orders of the AFT, petitions under Article 227 cannot be filed before the cour....
Jurisdiction over service matters and attachment orders lies primarily with the Armed Forces Tribunal; the High Court only intervenes in exceptional cases.
Court emphasized the importance of awaiting completion of internal procedures and remedies before involving Tribunal intervention, ruling the petitioner’s appeal as premature.
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.
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
