Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, JJ.
Ls Gi (S) Abhishek Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Defence (Navy), New Delhi And Others – Respondents
Writ A No. 8782 of \2022
Decided on : 30-11-2023
Service Matter - Armed Forces Tribunal Jurisdiction - Navy Act, 1957, Section 3(o) - Summary Trial, Reduction in Rank, Deprivation of Badges of Good Conduct - The court held that the punishment of reduction in rank and deprivation of badges of good conduct awarded in summary trial are amenable to the Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal and can be challenged before the Tribunal. The impugned judgments/orders dated 10.08.2022 and 06.10.2022 are set-aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the Indian Navy, was subjected to a summary trial under the Navy Act, 1957, resulting in a reduction in rank and deprivation of good conduct badges. The petitioner filed an Original Application before the Armed Forces Tribunal, challenging the punishment and his subsequent discharge from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the punishment of reduction in rank and deprivation of badges of good conduct awarded in summary trial are amenable to the Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal and can be challenged before the Tribunal. The impugned judgments/orders dated 10.08.2022 and 06.10.2022 were set-aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh.
Issues: The main issue was whether the punishment awarded in the summary trial, specifically the reduction in rank and deprivation of good conduct badges, fell within the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, and held that the punishment of reduction in rank and deprivation of badges of good conduct awarded in summary trial are amenable to the Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The court also emphasized the binding nature of the law laid down by a Co-ordinate Bench of the court and set-aside the impugned judgments/orders.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed partly, and the impugned judgments/orders dated 10.08.2022 and 06.10.2022 were set-aside. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh. The Tribunal was directed to apply its independent mind for adjudication of the case.
JUDGMENT :
Om Prakash Shukla, J.
This judgment has been divided into following sections to facilitate analysis :
|
| INDEX | PAGE NO |
| A | Introduction | 1 |
| B | Factual Matrix | 2 |
| C | Submissions | 5 |
| D | Issues | 11 |
| E | Rules & Article | 11 |
| F | Analysis & Findings | 18 |
| G. | Conclusion | 32 |
A. INTRODUCTION
(1) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the following two judgments/orders of the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) :
II. Judgment/Order dated 06.10.2022, whereby Review Application No. 86 of 2022, seeking to review the aforesaid judgment/order dated 10.08.2022 passed in Original Application No. 276 of 2022, has been dismissed.”
B. FACTUAL MATRIX
(2) The petitioner was enrolled in Indian Navy on 01.02.2007. He was promoted to the post of Petty Officer (GS) on 01.03.2017 and while continuing to work on the said post in Indian Navy, a summary trial under Sections 68 and 77 (2) of the Navy Act, 1957 was conducted against the petitioner for the alleged charges that unauthorized quantity of eighteen liquor bottles, which was said to be purchased by the petitioner from Military Canteen at Visakhapatnam, was found in his possession, wherein the petitioner took a stand that these liquor bottles were purchased for the purposes of consumption in upcoming marriage function of his brother-in-law. In the said summary trial concluded vide order dated 23.02.2021, the petitioner was punished with reduction in rank and deprivation of good conduct badges. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.2021, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 09.03.2021 under Section 23 of the Navy Act, 1957, however, during pendency of this representation, the petitioner was discharged from service vide order dated 02.08.2021 after completion of initial engagement of 15 years of service, even though the petitioner was willing to extend his engagement of service.
(3) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of punishment dated 23.02.2021 for “reduction in rank and deprivation of good conduct badges” passed in summary trial as well as order of discharge/release dated 02.08.2021, the petitioner instituted Original Application No. 276 of 2022 under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 2007’) with the following prayers :-
B. To set aside the Order/Authority of Release no. LRDO I:01/2022 PART 1 SL 684 dated 02/08/2021 passed by the respondents, as provided in discharge certificate no. 76318 (as Contained in Annexure 2) of applicant, of discharge from service of applicant and to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in the service with all consequential benefits, as his re-engagement Performa was duly completed and recommended by the then Commanding Officer, by awarding some minor punishment for the procedural lapse.
C. Any other relief as considered deemed fit and pr
The punishment of reduction in rank and deprivation of badges of good conduct awarded in summary trial are amenable to the Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal.
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.
The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is a basic feature and cannot be curtailed by legislation. The rule of alternative remedy is a rule of prudence and not a rule of la....
The power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is a basic and inalienable human right, forming part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and cannot be taken away b....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and extraordinary, and should not....
Point of Law : No person has a right of appeal against the final order or decision of the Tribunal to the Supreme Court other than those falling under Section 30(2) of the Act, but it is statutory ap....
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
