Surat Singh vs Union Of India & Another
2012 Latest Caselaw 5304 Del

$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                          Date of Decision: 5th September, 2012

+                               W.P.(C) 5548/2012

       SURAT SINGH                                     ..... Petitioner
                                Represented by:   Mr.S.M.Dalal, Adv.

                       versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER                              ..... Respondents

                     Represented by:              Mr.Anil Gautam, Adv.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J (Oral)

1. Though a writ petition but since it lays a challenge to a view taken by the Armed Forces Tribunal, suffice would it be to state that the issue at hand needs to be decided with reference to the pleadings before the Armed Forces Tribunal.

2. Since the pleadings of the parties before the Armed Forces Tribunal have been placed along with the writ petition we proceed to hear arguments and decide the writ petition at the preliminary hearing itself.

3. With respect to an indictment of facilitating theft and sought to be sustained on an alleged extra judicial confession statedly made by the petitioner, at a General Court Martial held between February 21, 2005 to April 16, 2005, the petitioner was found guilty of two charges and was

sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months as also to be dismissed from service.

4. Petitioner challenged the conviction and the penalty by filing a writ petition in this Court which was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal when the same was constituted under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 and was re-numbered as T.A.No.300/2010.

5. Pertaining to the main culprit Subedar J.P.Rana, qua his conviction and sentence at a General Court Martial, challenge by him succeeded before the Armed Forces Tribunal where the Tribunal held that the so called extra judicial confession made was not sufficient to hold him guilty.

6. Qua the petitioner, vide decision dated May 24, 2011, the Tribunal took the same view and thus held that the conviction was illegal. The sentence imposed upon the petitioner was quashed. However, the Tribunal concluded by holding that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been discharged from service from the date when the impugned order of dismissal from service was inflicted. The Tribunal further directed that in that view of the matter, the petitioner shall be entitled to all pensionary benefits from the date of discharge.

7. Petitioner sought review of the final direction issued by the Tribunal by and under R.A.No.45/2011 in which the petitioner highlighted the fact that there was no reason not to directed petitioner's reinstatement, more so, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had rendered only nine years, ten months and fifteen days service which would not entitle petitioner to any pension in terms of the final direction issued by the Tribunal.

8. As we understand, what the petitioner intended to tell the Tribunal

was: that if the Tribunal was balancing equities by requiring the petitioner to be treated as discharged from service, having in mind that the petitioner would be entitled to pension, vis-à-vis the logical entitlement to which the petitioner would be entitled to, i.e. reinstatement; since the equity of the petitioner being eligible for pension, i.e. the very foundation of the reasoning, if any, in the mind of the Tribunal, would be shaky, the matter needed a re-look.

9. Unfortunately for us, vide order dated July 24, 2012, in a cryptic manner, the Tribunal has dismissed R.A.No.45/2011 by recording that having heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the review application it finds no grounds to review the order passed by the Tribunal on May 24, 2011.

10. In our opinion, noting the facts as aforesaid, and highlighting that as a result of the final direction passed by the Tribunal the petitioner would not be getting any pension, reasons ought to be given by the Tribunal as to why in spite of said fact being brought to its notice review application was dismissed without a reason.

11. Clarifying that it is not always obligatory to give reasons while disposing of a review application, but where fact of the instant kind surfaces and are highlighted in a review petition, it would be expected that some reasons are penned while disposing of the review application.

12. The writ petition stands disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated July 24, 2012 insofar as R.A.No.45/2011 has been dismissed. R.A.No.45/2011 is restored before the Armed Forces Tribunal with direction that the same shall be decided by recording reasons while disposing of the

review application.

13. Parties shall appear before the Registrar of the Armed Forces Tribunal on September 26, 2012 who would then list the review application before an appropriate Bench of the Tribunal.

14. No costs.

15. Dasti.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) Judge

(MANMOHAN SINGH) Judge SEPTEMBER 05, 2012 'anb'