Ng P Moyon vs Union Of India And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 2476 Del

$~23
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 2747/2016 & CM No.11563/2016
       NG P MOYON                                      ..... Petitioner
                          Through : Mr. D.K. Singh, Advocate with
                          Mr. Rajinder Kumar, Advocate

                          versus

       UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                      ..... Respondents
                     Through : Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
                    ORDER

% 30.03.2016

1. This order is in continuation of the order dated 29.3.2016, on which

date, counsel for the petitioner had stated that the petitioner is aggrieved by

the order dated 16.3.2016 of the Assembly of General Force Court under

SSB Act, 2007, that shall commence w.e.f. 1.4.2016, on the ground that one

of the members of the General Force Court (GFC) is disqualified from being

a part of the GFC in view of the provisions of the Rule 63 (iv) of the SSB

Rules, 2009, secondly, the Additional JAG (Litigation) appointed as a

Prosecutor under the GFC is disqualified under Rule 63 (iii) and lastly, the

provisions of Rule 175 that deals with the procedure laid down for

conducting a Court of Inquiry, has been violated by the respondents

inasmuch as the witnesses produced by the prosecution during the Court of

Inquiry, had deposed behind the petitioner's back.

2. In view of the aforesaid submissions, counsel for the respondents,

who had appeared on advance notice, was directed to obtain instructions and

having regard to the paucity of time, the case was adjourned for today.

3. Today, counsel for the respondents produces the original records

which we have perused. The said records clearly indicate that the petitioner

was not only present when the deposition of the prosecution witnesses was

recorded during the Court of Inquiry, but he had even cross-examined the

said witnesses. As for the other two pleas taken by the petitioner with regard

to improper constitution of the GFC and disqualification of the Additional

JAG (Litigation) appointed as a prosecutor, our attention is drawn to Section

96 of the SSB Act, 2007 which falls under Chapter VIII and lays down the

procedure of Force Court. As per the said provision, the petitioner shall

have an opportunity to object to any officer named as a part of the Force

Court and his objection shall be heard and recorded and dealt with.

4. In view of the above, counsel for the respondents is justified in stating

that the aforesaid objection taken by the petitioner is premature inasmuch as

he would have an ample opportunity to take such a plea when the GFC

convenes on 1.4.2016.

5. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the

present petition.

6. While cautioning the petitioner to be more careful in future while

making averments on oath in the writ petition, which we find are contrary to

the records and frowning upon his attempt to misguide the Court by making

misstatements in the petition, particularly ground J., leave, as prayed for, is

granted.

7. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, along with the pending

application.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SUNIL GAUR, J MARCH 30, 2016 sk/ap