2026:BHC-AS:1720-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.18691 OF 2024 Union of India, Digitally signed by BASAVRAJ Ministry of Defence (Army) .. Petitioner BASAVRAJ GURAPPA GURAPPA PATIL Vs.

PATIL Date:

2026.01.16 Ashok Rajaram Tadas .. Respondents

11:46:46 +0530 ...

Mr. Amrendra J. Mishra, Advocates for the Petitioner Mr. Yogendra Pratap Singh, Advocate for the Respondents CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ &

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

DATE : 12^th JANUARY 2026 P.C. :

Challenging the judgment delivered on 15^th February 2023 in Original Application No.81 of 2016, the Union of India through officer In-charge of the Ministry of Defence (Army) has filed this writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Review of the order passed by the Tribunal in Original Application No.81 of 2016 was sought by the petitioner-Union of India in Review Application No.17 of 2024 which was dismissed by an order dated 5^th August 2024 and this order is also under challenge in this writ petition.

3. Mr. Amrendra J. Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner- Union of India submits that the respondent who was an ex-sepoy, did not report for duty and remained absent and, as a consequence thereof, he was dismissed from service and the said order was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Union of India further submits that the delay of 9 years in approaching the Tribunal was ignored and Original Application No.81 of 2016 was entertained without any plausible reason.

4. The respondent-sepoy, who was enrolled in the Army on 22^nd March 1982, obtained the order of discharge on his own request on compassionate grounds under Rule 13(3)(III)(iv) of the Army Rules, 1954. His date of retirement was fixed as 31^st October 1998 and he was dispatched from his parent unit to Depot Battalion at Khadki for completion of the pension drill. He did not report to the Depot Battalion and remained absent without leave. The Apprehension Roll was issued on 28^th November 1998 to the Deputy Commissioner, Akola and other civil authorities but he could not be apprehended or surrendered before the Military Authorities. The Court of Inquiry was ordered by the Commanding Officer and the respondent-sepoy was declared a deserter with effect from 1^st October 1998. On conclusion of the proceedings on 5^th January 1999, an order of dismissal from service was passed. However, it is not disputed that the advance pension claims of the respondent- sepoy was processed and he was granted service pension from 1^st November 1998 to July 2014, revised from time to time. About 15 years after the order of the Court of Inquiry, the pension granted to the respondent-sepoy was temporarily suspended with effect from 1^st August 2014. In Original Application No.81 of 2016, the respondent- sepoy challenged the pension suspension order and the dismissal order and prayed for regularization of the leave absence from his accumulated leave.

5. This is not in dispute that the respondent-sepoy was granted the benefit of premature retirement. For not reporting for duty, the respondent-sepoy took a plea that he was made to consume some sedative substance by two CRPF men who looted his belongings but this plea was not accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal proceeded in the matter primarily on the basis of the undisputed fact that the respondent was granted premature retirement w.e.f. 31^st October 1998. The Tribunal considered this aspect in paragraph no.6 of its decision dated 15^th February 2023 which is reproduced hereunder:

“6. Consideration of above sort of sequence of events shows that there were no malafides involved in the applicant not being able to report at BEG Centre, Pune. He states that since he started getting pension, he assumed that he was not required to report at Record Office, BEG Centre at Pune in future and he, therefore, did not go there ther