Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, SAURABH BANERJEE
Parampreet Singh Kochar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks relief against disciplinary proceedings. (Para 1) |
| 2. pending appeal indicates no need for new orders. (Para 4) |
| 3. petition dismissed; liberty for future grievances. (Para 5 , 6) |
1. Petitioner has preferred the present petition against the order dated 18.02.2022 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Principal Bench, vide which his prayer for interim relief in OA No. 126/2022; seeking stay of disciplinary proceedings in furtherance of court of inquiry dated 25.08.2021, has been rejected. By this petition, quashing of impugned disciplinary proceedings is sought. Besides, petitioner has also prayed for action on letter dated 07.08.2022 issued by respondent No.7; direct the respondents to provide him copy of charge sheet in terms of Rule 22 of the Army Rule; to call for summary of evidence; to direct the respondents to cross-examine the material witness - Captain Paras Awasthi and to impose costs on respondents for intentional fraud, malice and harassment to petitioner and his family.
2. Notice issued.
3. Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, learned CGSC, accepts notice of the petition.
4. Upon hearing learned counsel for t
The High Court may dismiss petitions rendered moot by subsequent actions, allowing parties to seek remedies in appropriate forums.
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 m....
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.
The guidelines from the DoPT and Central Vigilance Commission do not apply to the Army Act and Army Rules, and therefore do not warrant interim relief to stay the Court of Inquiry.
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....
Courts may refrain from interfering in matters pending before specialized tribunals, and provisional decisions may be deemed pending the final decision of the tribunal.
The court mandates prompt decision-making by administrative bodies on unresolved representations impacting individuals' rights, with an emphasis on suspending coercive actions during review.
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
