Col Anand Swaroop vs General Bipin Rawat & Ors
2019 Latest Caselaw 1120 Del

$~50
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                       Date of Order: 19.02.2019
+                 CONT.CAS(C) 126/2019
         COL ANAND SWAROOP                        ..... Petitioner
                     Through:           Mr. S.S. Pandey, Ms. Devina
                                        Sharma, Ms. Vibhuti Sharma,
                                        Advs.

                             versus

         GENERAL BIPIN RAWAT & ORS            ..... Respondents
                       Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC
                                with Col. V.S. Gaur and Major
                                Charul Bhat in person.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

         1.       Mr. Kirtiman Singh, the Central Government Standing
         Counsel, on instructions, has placed on record a copy of
         message received from JAG Branch, Headquarter Western
         Command to the effect that "it is clarified as under ALFA (.)
         confirming authority of the petitioner is GOC-IN-C western
         command in terms of Para 472 of Regulation for the Army
         COMMA 1987 (Revised Edition) BRAVO (.) GCM proceedings
         were placed before GOC Delhi Area for consideration of
         revision of findings of GCM. GCM proceedings were placed
         before GOC Delhi area for consideration of revision of findings

Cont. Cas. (C) No.126/2019                                 Page 1 of 2
          of GCM. GCM proceedings not repeat not yet been submitted to
         GOC-in-C western command till date."
         2.          The learned CGSC states that the General Officer
         Commanding, Delhi Area, Delhi Cantt is not the confirming
         authority of the petitioner. He further states that the confirming
         Authority of the petitioner is General Officer Commanding-in-
         Chief, Western Command, Chandimandir (Haryana) in terms of
         Regulation 472 of the Regulation of the Army, 1987.
         3.          In view of the above, the learned counsel for the
         petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty
         to avail other remedies as available in law.
         4.          As such, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with
         liberty, as prayed for.
         5.          Order dasti under the signature of Court Master/Private
         Secretary.


                                                         VINOD GOEL, J.

FEBRUARY 19, 2019 "sandeep"