Maj Desai Prajakta Hemant vs Union Of India And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 851 Del

$~Suppl.-17
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P. (C) 3248/2021

       MAJ DESAI PRAJAKTA HEMANT .....Petitioner
                        Through: Mr. Rajiv Manglik, Advocate

                          Versus

       UNION OF INDIA AND ORS       .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Sr. Panel Counsel with Mr. Asav Rajan, Advocates for R-1.

Col. Sachidananda Prabhu, MS Legal Army.

%                                      Date of Decision: 12th March, 2021

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

                          J U D G ME N T

MANMOHAN, J (Oral):

CM APPL. 9921/2021
       Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P. (C) 3248/2021

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the interim order dated 26th February 2021 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (for sh ort "AFT") in OA No. 358/2021 and for staying the release of the Petitioner on 18th March, 2021 till the pendency of the abovementioned OA.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner joined t he services of respondents as Short Commission Officer in the Indian Army on 11th March, 2011 and was granted the seniority w.e.f. 19th October, 2011. He further states that the Petitioner was considered for grant of permanent commission and/or extension and the result was published vide let ter No. 11th January, 2021 wherein the Petitioner was neither granted the permanent commission nor the extension of service and was directed to be released from service on 18th March, 2021.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner h ad been graded 'Outstanding', i.e. '9' marks even by the sam e CO in t he past an d thus the drop of performance in next ACR from 01st November, 2016 to 31 s t October, 2017 to '7' points and '6' in Star qualities was only due to the appeal of the Petitioner against the CO for taking a lenient view again st t he Petitioner's harasser in a sexual harassment case.

4. He, however, admits that respondents have disposed of the Petitioner's statutory complaint vide letter dat ed 29 th Ju ly, 2019 wit hout proper application of mind stating that the Petitioner's ACR was well corroborated and consistent.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that learned AFT refu sed to grant the stay on release of the Petitioner primarily due to delay in approaching the learned AFT without considering the fact that the regional bench of learned AFT having territorial jurisdiction was not functional an d the Petitioner had to approach the Delhi Bench.

6. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the Petitioner's case for continuation of service was considered by the Selection Board bu t sh e was

neither recommended for grant of permanent commission nor for ext ension on account of certain adverse entries in the ACRs for the period in question.

7. Petitioner's statutory complaint dated 06th August, 2019 again st t he adverse entries in the ACRs has been rejected vide order dat ed 29 th Ju ly, 2019 passed in the name of the President of India.

8. Keeping in view the adverse entries in the ACR, this Cou rt is of t h e view that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief pending final disposal of the OA by the AFT.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays that the hearing and disposal of the petitioner's appeal before AFT be expedited. This Court is confident that in the event the Petitioner files an application for early hearing, AFT would certainly try to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.

10. With the aforesaid liberty, present writ petition stands disposed of.

MANMOHAN, J

ASHA MENON, J MARCH 12, 2021 rn