Delhi High Court
Cdt Mohit Jayas vs Union Of India & Anr. on 21 July, 2016
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : July 21, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 5356/2015
CDT MOHIT JAYAS ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Ajit Kakkar, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Sanjay Jain, ASG instructed
by Mr.Anil Gautam, Ms.Rhea Verma
and Ms.Bani Dikshit, Advocates
Lt.Vikrant Singh, AJA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Clearing the selection process to be inducted firstly as a cadet and
upon successful clearing of the training, to be commissioned in the Indian
Navy as an officer, the petitioner joined Indian Naval Academy Ezhimala
(Kerala) for training and undergoing the requisite course. Petitioner claims
that his seniors ragged him and subjected him to torture and as a result he
lost his voice. Apprehending he being sent back from the Academy the
petitioner got drafted the writ petition on May 20, 2015 and filed the same in
this Court on May 22, 2015. Listed for hearing on May 25, 2015 notice was
issued in the writ petition.
2. But in the interregnum a show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner on May 22, 2015, requiring petitioner to submit a response within
15 days to the fact disclosed in the show cause notice i.e. the Medical Board
opining that the petitioner was suffering from Dysphonia and was found
permanently unfit for future military service and thus to show cause as to
why he should not be invalidated out of military service.
3. Till date the petitioner has not responded to the show cause notice for
the reason the petitioner filed the writ petition before the show cause notice
was issued. On July 20, 2015 noting that proceeding on leave pending
withdrawal on medical invalidment dated July 17, 2015, it was recorded that
the petitioner would be struck off from victualling strength.
4. In the counter affidavit allegations of ragging are denied. It is stated
that senior cadets were empowered to enforce minimal disciplinary
directions, and as regards the petitioner it is stated that he was found weak in
swimming and used to absent himself from practical sessions and it was a
case where the senior cadets, in their enthusiasm to tone up the petitioner,
inflicted a punishment which was probably a lot too harsh.
5. There is reference to the fact that at the contemporaneous time the
petitioner never made any allegations of ragging.
6. Be that as it may, this fact is noted by us to set the tune of the final
direction which we would be passing.
7. It is impossible for this Court to find out as to what actually
transpired. Whether it was a case of ragging or senior cadets duly
empowered to levy an appropriate punishment over did what was required to
be done. What appears to have happened is this. To improve the breathing
power of the petitioner the senior cadets made him put his head in a bucket
of water, hold his breath and thereafter exhale. The petitioner claims this to
be an act of ragging.
8. Medical papers concerning opinion formed by the Medical Board that
the petitioner has been detected with Dysphonia are already with the
petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the
petitioner forwarded to him the show cause notice dated May 22, 2015 and
expresses regret for not bringing said fact to the notice of this Court. Had
this been done, the writ petition could have been disposed of there and then
as premature requiring petitioner to submit a response to the show cause
notice.
9. Needless to state, said response had to be considered and a reasoned
decision had to be passed.
10. But on account of pendency of the writ petition the petitioner thought
that he was not to respond to the show cause notice.
11. Sh.Sanjay Jain learned ASG very fairly concedes on instructions that
fairness would require the writ petition to be disposed of permitting the
petitioner to file a response to the show cause notice dated May 22, 2015
within 15 days from today. Learned ASG assures that a reasoned decision
would be taken with a fair and an open mind. Needless to state if the
response of the petitioner is accepted that would be the end of the matter and
the petitioner would regain his status as a cadet. How the intervening period
has to be reckoned would be decided by the competent authority. If the
response is rejected, the petitioner would be entitled to remedy as per law.
12. Since the petitioner is present in Court along with his father we have
explained to him that it would be advisable for him to show the medical
papers, on the strength of which the medical board of the Indian Navy has
opined that the petitioner suffers from Dysphonia, to a reputed government
hospital and take an opinion. If the petitioner is armed with an opinion
which challenges the opinion formed by the doctors of the Indian Navy,
annexing that opinion with his response the petitioner should file the
response to the show cause notice. Such points, with reference to medical
jurisprudence, on which the petitioner would rely to challenge the opinion of
the medical board should be highlighted in the reply so that the respondent
can look into the material which challenges the opinion of the medical board
comprising doctors of the Indian Navy.
13. The writ petition is disposed of issuing aforenoted directions
corresponding to the concessions recorded with its consequence in para 11
above.
14. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(PRATIBHA RANI)
JUDGE
JULY 21, 2016
mamta
