The Court determined that minor punishments, including reprimands, fall under 'service matters,' thus the Armed Forces Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear such cases despite their non-dismissal nature.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

By this common order CWP-3118-2023, CWP-25737-2019 and CWP-7130-2023 are disposed of since issue involved in all the petitions and prayer sought are common. With the consent of parties and for the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from CWP-3118-2023.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders dated 20.09.2018, 15.04.2020 and 31.10.2022 (Anneuxre P-1) whereby petitioner has been awarded punishment of 'Severe Reprimand'.

3. Despite constitution of Armed Forces Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal') for armed forces, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that as per section 3 (o) of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (for short 2007 Act') in case an order of punishment is passed in summary trial and punishment is other than dismissal, Tribunal has no jurisdiction, thus, remedy left is petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner is working with Indian Army and by impugned order he has been awarded punishment of 'Severe Reprimand'. The order of punishment has been passed by the Brigadier in exercise of power conferred by Section 80 -82 of the ARMY ACT , 1950. It is apt to notice here that petitioner was subjected to minor punishment by following procedure of summary trial.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 3 (o) of 2007 Act defines expression 'service matters'. In the definition, punishment of dismissal awarded in summary trial is covered within the definition of 'service matters', however, if the punishment is awarded other than dismissal in summary disposal and trials, it does not fall within the definition of 'service matters'. Similarly, if trial is conducted by summary Court Martial and punishment awarded is other than dismissal from service or imprisonment is less than 3 months, the matter does not fall within the definition of 'service matters'. Section 14 of 2007 Act confers jurisdiction and power upon the Tribunal with respect to 'service matters'. Section 15 of 2007 Act confers jurisdiction and power upon the Tribunal, in respect of matters of appeal against Court Martial. In the case of petitioner, the order has been passed by Brigadier exercising power under Section 80 -82 of the ARMY ACT and Brigadier has conducted trial as summary trial, thus, case of the petitioner does not fall within definition of 'service matters' as contemplated by Section 3 (o) read with Section 14 of the 2007 Act. Thus, writ petition is the only remedy with the petitioner.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon para 13 of the judgment of Delhi High Court in Ex. Link Vishav Priya Singh v. UOI 2018 (3) SCT 216. Para 13 of the judgment reads as:

"13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the first and the foremost issue that needs to be decided is whether the present petition is not maintainable in this Court in view of Section 3(o) of the AFT Act, as it is the submission of Ms. Babbar that the issue herein relates to a service matter that too concerning persons subject to Army Actwhere the punishment is of dismissal or imprisonment for more than three months. In that regard, the answer to the said issue lies in her own submission, inasmuch as she had stated that the matters, which shall not have the jurisdiction of AFT, are