Delhi High Court
Rambir Singh vs Union Of India & Others on 23 August, 2012
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~16.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: August 23, 2012
+ W.P.(C) 5129/2012
RAMBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Vinod Kumar, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Ravinder Agarwal,
CGSC with Mr.Amit Yadav,
Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Tried at a summary court martial from August 03, 1993 to
August 05, 1993, and being found guilty of the second and third
charge and acquittal of the first, sentence imposed upon the
petitioner was to be reduced to the ranks. As a result whereof
the petitioner was required to be discharged from service on
account of the fact that the rank to which he got reduced had a
lower age of superannuation.
2. The petitioner alleges that his statutory petition under
Section 164(2) of the Army Act questioning the order passed on
August 03, 1993 by the Summary Court Martial was filed by him
but not being decided, he had filed W.P.(C) No.1315/1997 in
which the following order had been passed on April 28, 1997.
"28.4.1997
Present:- Mr.M.N. Gupta for petitioner.
C.W.No.1315/1997.
In this case, the petitioner is questioning
summary court martial order passed on 3.8.1993. The
petitioner submits that he has filed a statutory
complaint and the same has yet not been disposed of.
In these circumstances, I direct the respondents
to dispose of the statutory complaint filed by the
petitioner within 8 weeks of the receipt of this order.
No further directions are necessary.
The writ petition and C.M. are accordingly
disposed of."
3. As per the petitioner, he never heard anything from the
respondents with respect to his statutory complaint requiring
him to file another statutory complaint on June 15, 2010 which
stands rejected vide impugned order dated January 11, 2012.
4. Relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition is to
quash the findings and the sentence at the Summary Court
Martial and to restore the service of the petitioner with the ranks
and thereafter grant consequential relief of promotion, wages
etc.
5. Now, it is unfortunate that W.P.(C) No.1315/1997 was
disposed of on the very first date of hearing without any notice
issued to the respondents. We highlight that in the said year
there was no practice followed in the Delhi High Court of serving
advance copies of the writ petition to the respondents. The writ
petition stands disposed of as recorded in the order dated April
28, 1997, upon the belief that the petitioner had filed a statutory
complaint.
6. As per the respondents they are unaware of any such
statutory complaint being filed.
7. Now, if the petitioner had filed a statutory complaint which,
as per order dated April 28, 1997, had to be disposed of within
eight weeks, we see no reason why the petitioner either did not
initiate action for contempt against the respondents or filed an
application in W.P.(C) No.1315/1997 bringing it to the notice of
this Court that the order of the Court is not complied with. Had
the petitioner done so, the respondents could have informed the
Court; a fact which they inform today, that they are unaware of
any statutory complaint being filed.
8. The petitioner is to be blamed for keeping quiet for over
twelve years and then raking up an issue of his statutory
complaint not being decided when he filed a representation on
June 15, 2010.
9. We highlight that the petitioner was released/discharged
from service on attaining the age of superannuation in the
reduced ranks on January 31, 1996, and today in the year 2012
it would be too late in the day to even re-consider the matter.
On delay and latches the writ petition is dismissed.
10. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
MANMOHAN SINGH, J
AUGUST 23, 2012/„anb‟
