The filing of a post-confirmation petition under Section 164 of the Army Act, 1950, from within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, and the rejection of such petition by the Government of India, conveyed within the same limits, constitutes a partial accrual of cause of action within the jurisdiction of the High Court, thereby conferring jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging the rejection.

1. While petitioner was pressing for grant of interim relief, the respondent-Union raised a preliminary objection questioning the very jurisdiction of this court to entertain the writ petition. The matter was accordingly considered on the plea of jurisdiction and for grant of interim relief to the petitioner at this stage with the agreement of 1/c for parties.

2. Petitioner was Commandant of 20 Infantry Brigade at Itrana (Alwar) Rajasthan and posted there on July 16, 1990 but on 24.1.93. he was transferred and posted as D.I.G. Assam Rifles, Mizoram. It seems that some anonymous complaint was received against him, which led to the setting up of a Staff Court of Enquiry. Petitioner appeared before the SCOI and he was, thereafter, ordered to be attached on 10.9.93. He was, served a charge-sheet on 3.10.93 and was allegedly made to sign on a proforma under R.22 of the Army Rules. He also made an application on this date asking investigation to be conducted in accordance with R.22. Later, the summary of evidence was ordered to be recorded against him which led to the convening of General Court Martial (G.C.M) on 17.1.94. A charge sheet was served on 9.1.94 for allegedly having committed offences U/sec. 63.of the Army Act and he was eventually convicted and sentenced by the G.C.M. to (a) forefeiture of three years service for promotion-(b) forefeiture of three years past service for pension and (c) severe reprimand.

3. Petitioner filed a pre-confirmation petition against the conviction and sentence which was dismissed on 19.2.94 and the sentence against him was promulgated on 3.10.94. Meanwhile, he was transferred and posted as Dy. G.O.C., 10-Infantry Division, Akhnoor in Jammu & Kashmir State on 10.10.94 from where, he filed a post- confirmation appeal U/sec. 164 of the Army Act on 23.10.94. rejection whereof was communicated to him on 31.8.95, admittedly within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.

4. He thereafter filed the present writ petition in this court challenging, amongst other things, the order of the Central Govt. rejecting his post-confirmation appeal on the ground of non-application of mind by the Competent authority.

5. Petitioner™s start case against the aforesaid conviction and sentence recorded by the G.C.M. is based on the alleged non-compliance of mandate of R.22 of the Army rules. According to him, he was not given a hearing before the summary of evidence was ordered to be recorded by the Commanding Officer. He alleges that even though, he had asked for investigation made in accordance with the requirements of Army Rule 22, the Commanding Officer had tampered with the relevant column in the application proforma under Army R. 22 to deprive him of the hearing and, in this manner, the whole proceeding leading to the conviction and sentence was vitiated. It is also projected that the sentence was passed against him on malafide considerations and arbitrarily.

6. All this is denied by the respondent who assert- that they had satisfied all the requirements of the Army rules and the relevant provisions. The allegations of malafides are also denied. Be that as it may, I am not called upon at this stage to go into the merit of the rival contentions and the issues raised, because as of now, the preliminary objection raised and the prayer for grant of interim relief made by the petitioner are required to be decided first.

7. Mr. Sethi, appearing for the respondents, has seriously contested the jurisdiction of this court to entertain petitioner™s writ petition. According to him, since all actions against the petitioner had proceeded in Rajasthan and within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court of Rajasthan, this court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and to consider any grant of relief to the petitioner. This was so because from the anonymous complaint to the rejection of petitioner™s pre-confirmation petition, all proceedings and actions had taken place in Rajasthan and as no cause of action had ar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document