Delhi High Court
Col Anand Swaroop vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 October, 2017
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9627/2017 & C.M. No. 39204/217
COL ANAND SWAROOP ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC for UOI
with Maj Charul and Col. Anupam.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 31.10.2017
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 11.07.2017 and
09.08.2017, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (in short 'AFT'), in
O.A. No.593/2015 filed by him for several reliefs including quashing of
the convening order dated 11.10.2012, convening a Court of Inquiry to
investigate into irregularities, if any, in accounting of funds allotted to the
petitioner for Indian Army, Ski Training Expedition to Norway and North
Pole, sanctioned vide Govt. of India's letter dated 30.12.2011. In his
Original Application (OA), the petitioner had also prayed for quashing the
directions for initiating disciplinary action against him.
2. On 11.07.2017, during the hearing of the O.A., the AFT had
clarified that the respondents may proceed ahead with the processing of
the case to enable the competent authority to take a decision on the basis
of records as to whether the petitioner ought to be proceeded against
departmentally. It was further clarified that the decision arrived at by the
respondents shall be subject to the final outcome of the pending O.A.
With these directions, the matter was adjourned to 09.08.2017. On
09.08.2017, the petitioner had circulated an adjournment slip on the
ground that his arguing counsel was not available. He had also handed
over a copy of the order passed by the General Officer Commanding,
Delhi Area, which reflected that a decision had been taken to proceed
against him by constituting a General Court Martial (in short 'GCM'). In
view of the aforesaid decision, the AFT had directed that the respondent
may proceed as per law and try to complete the proceedings before the
next date of hearing i.e. by 06.12.2017.
3. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the
meantime, on 20.10.2017 the petitioner was placed under close arrest for
purposes of a GCM that was to be held on 21.10.2017, which was then
adjourned to 26.10.2017. The GCM has thereafter been adjourned to
07.11.2017. In the meantime, due to his close arrest, the petitioner could
not engage a counsel or take steps to be adequately represented before the
GCM.
4. When the matter was taken up on the first call, Mr. Narula, CGSC
for the respondent/UOI had handed over a copy of the order dated
31.10.2017 passed by the General Officer Commanding, Delhi Area
releasing the petitioner from close arrest in view of the undertaking
furnished by him. The said document is taken on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had sought a pass over to enable
him to obtain instructions as to whether the petitioner had actually been
released from close arrest. On pass over, the petitioner is present along
with his counsel and submits that he was released from close arrest today,
at 11.25 AM.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents states on instructions that no
further orders of close arrest will be issued against the petitioner. He states
that the respondents may be permitted to proceed further with the GCM
proceedings which are now scheduled on 07.11.2017, with an assurance
that during the pendency of the O.A. before the AFT, the findings
returned by the Court Martial, would not be sent for confirmation.
7. While binding the respondents to the aforesaid undertaking, the
learned AFT is requested to hear the arguments in the pending O.A. filed
by the petitioner on the next date of hearing and pass appropriate orders. It
is made clear that neither party shall be accommodated for any
adjournment on the next date of hearing before the AFT. During the
pendency of the O.A., the respondents shall remain bound by the
undertaking recorded hereinabove. While the proceeding of the GCM may
be completed, the findings will not be sent for confirmation or
promulgation.
8. The present petition is disposed of along with pending application
at the stage of admission while clarifying that the order above has been
passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case,
especially keeping in view the exigency of the matter having regard to the
close arrest of the petitioner, and it shall not be treated as a precedent
in any other case to invoke the jurisdiction of this court to entertain a
petition against the orders passed by the AFT.
HIMA KOHLI, J
REKHA PALLI, J
OCTOBER 31, 2017
na/ap/rkb
