Back
2002 (2) JLJ 86
Bhawani Singh, C.J. and K.K. Lahoti, J.
Ram Narain Singh v. Chief of Army Staff and others
L.P.A. No. 28 of 2002. against the order of Single Judge passed in
Writ Petition No. 3329 of 2001, Decided on 20.3.2002.
(2) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 227 -- appeal filed from Rewa -- order communicated at Rewa -- order of Chief of Amzy Stall can be challenged anywhere in the country.
The Court martial was conducted at Bangalore and the charge-sheet was also issued at the same place. Court ‘martial proceedings resulted in the dismissal of the petitioner at Bangalore, where order of dismissal was given. However, petitioner challenged the order of dismissal through appeal submitted to the Chief of Army Staff, Army Headquarters, DHQ Post, New Delhi dated December 23, 1999. Order dated October 10, 2000 demonstrates that appeal of petitioner was placed before the Chief of Army Staff and was rejected. [Para 2
Petitioner submits that this Court has jurisdiction over the matter because he overstayed the leave at Rewa within the jurisdiction of this Court. He filed the appeal from Rewa. He received the order of dismissal of his appeal at Rewa despatched from New Delhi. [Para 3
Held: Placing reliance only on the cause of action would not be justified. Chief of Army Staff may be sued anywhere in the country. We have found that statutory appeal lies to Chief of Army Staff under Army Act, 1950 which has been rejected by the Chief of Army Staff and communication sent to the petitioner to his village in Rewa, in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, in the light of Apex Court decision, it is not difficult to hold that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition and decide the controversy. (2001) 9 SCC 525 followed. [Para 3
¼1½ lsuk vf/kfu;e] 1950 && /kkjk 164¼2½ && vihy jhok ls Hksth xbZ && vihy dk fofu‘p; jhok ¼e-iz-½ esa ;kph dks lalwfpr && e-iz mPp U;k;ky; dks vkns‘k ds fo#) fjV ;kfpdk xzg.k djus dh vf/kdkfjrk gSA
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 rFkk 227 && vihy jhok ls Qkby dh xbZ && vkns‘k jhok esa lalwfpr && Fkylsuk/;{k dk vkns‘k ns‘k esa dgha Hkh vkf{kIr fd;k tk ldrk gSA
lsok U;k;ky; dh dkZ;okgh caxywj esa dh xbZ Fkh rFkk vkjksii= Hkh mlh LFkku ij tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA lsuk U;k;ky; dh dk;Zokgh caxywj esa ;kph dh inP;qfr esa ifj.kr gqbZ] tgk¡ inP;qfr dk vkns‘k fn;k x;k FkkA rFkkfi] ;kph us Fkylsuk/;{k] lsuk eq[;ky;] Mh ,p D;w iksLV] ubZ fnYyh dks dh xbZ vihy fnukad 23 fnlacj 1999 }kjk inP;qfr ds vkns‘k ij vk{ksi fd;kA vkns‘k fnuakd 10 vDVwcj 2000 ls Li"V gS fd ;kph dh vihy Fkylsuk/;{k ds le{k j[kh xbZ Fkh rFkk ukeatwj gks xbZ FkhA ¿ iSjk 2À
;kph dk fuosnu gS fd bl U;k;ky; dks ekeys dh vf/kdkfjrk gS D;ksafd og NqÍh ls vf/kd le; bl U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk ds Hkhrj jhok esa jgk FkkA mlus vihy jhok ls Qkby dhA mlus ubZ fnYyh ls izsf"kr] viuh vihy dh ukeatwjh dk vkns‘k jhok esa izkIr fd;kA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % dsoy okngsrqd dk voaycu U;k;ksfpr ugha gksxkA Fkylsuk/;{k ij ns‘k esa dgha Hkh okn yk;k tk ldrk gSA geus ik;k gS fd lsuk vf/kfu;e] 1950 ds v/khu dkuwuh vihy Fkylsuk/;{k dks gksrh gS] ftls Fkylsuk/;{k }kjk ukeatwj fd;k x;k gS rFkk ;kph dks lalwpuk e/; izns‘k jkT; esa jhok esa mlds xzke esa Hksth xbZA vr%] mPpre U;k;ky; ds fofu‘p; ds izdk‘k esa] ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djuk dfBu ugha gS fd bl U;k;ky; dks ;kfpdk xzg.k djus rFkk lafookn fofuf‘pr djus dh vf/kdkfjrk gSA ¼2001½ 9 ,l lh lh 525 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 3À
Singh, C.J. -- 1. This Appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 27.11.2001 whereby, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition for want of jurisdiction.
2. Petitioner was sepoy in the trade of tinsmith of Army Supply Corps. He proceeded on casual leave for 20 days with effect from 11.8.1998 to 30.8.1998 to his home in Rewa (Madhya Pradesh). While availing the leave, he fell ill. He informed the Commanding Officer about it on 20.8.1998 and 23.9.1998. He also submitted application for extension of leave for two months for reason of illness and also sent medical certificate after recovering from the illness. Ultimately, he reported for duty on 1.11.1998 but he is described to have joined on 5.11.1998 for overstay of leave, charge-sheet was prepared under section 39(b) of the Army Act, 1950. This happened when he was at Bangalore. The Court martial was conducted at Bangalore and the charge-sheet was also issued at the same place. Court martial proceedings resulted in the dismissal of the petitioner at Bangalore, where order of dismissal was given. However, petitioner challenged the order of dismissal through appeal submitted to the Chief of Army Staff, Army Headquarters, DHQ Post, New Delhi dated December 23,1999. Order dated October 10, 2000 demonstrates that appeal of petitioner was placed before the Chief of Army Staff and was rejected.
3. Through Writ Petition No. 3329/2001, petitioner has challenged his dismissal by the respondents on a number of grounds. Respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition for want of jurisdiction on the ground that respondents No.2 and 3 reside at Bangalore. Their office was at Bangalore (Karnataka), while Chief of Army Staff was in Delhi. No part of cause of action arose within the State of Madhya Pradesh. Petitioner submits that this Court has jurisdiction over the matter because he overstayed the leave at Rewa within the jurisdiction of this Court He filed the appeal from Rewa. He received C1e order of dismissal of his appeal at Rewa despatched from New Delhi. There is no dispute that Court-Martial proceedings proceeded by Charge-sheet were held at Bangalore. There is no dispute that order of dismissal was passed at Bangalore and served on the petitioner over there. However, statutory appeal against the order of dismissal lies to the Chief of Army Staff under section 164(2) of Army Act, 1950 submitted from Rewa under the jurisdiction of this Court. It, has been decided by Chief of Army Staff and order of rejection of appeal is communicated to the petitioner at Rewa in Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, the decision applicable in this case should be Dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army Staff and another [(2001) 9 SCC 525] which holds that placing reliance only on the cause of action would not be justified. Chief of Army Staff may be sued anywhere in the country. We have found that statutory appeal lies to Chief of Army Staff under Army Act, 1950 which has been rejected by the Chief of Army Staff and communication sent to the petitioner to his village in Rewa, in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, in the light of Apex Court decision, it is not difficult to hold that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition and decide the controversy. Consequently order of learned Single Judge dated 27.11.2001 is set aside, case remanded for consideration and decision on merits.
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
