Delhi High Court
Maj Gen Jitendra Kumar Shukla Vsm vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 November, 2024
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 05.11.2024
+ W.P.(C) 12266/2023
MAJ GEN JITENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA VSM .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Indra Singh, Mr.Nasir
Mohd., Ms.Kaberi Sharma,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Neeraj, SPC with
Mr.Vedansh Anand, GP and
Mr.Rudra Paliwal, Mr.Sanjay
Pal, Mr.Soumyadip
Chakraborty, Mr.Sachin
Saraswat, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 5 days in
filing the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents is
condoned.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 12266/2023
3. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated
11.08.2023 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'AFT') in Original
Application 1617/2020 titled Maj. Gen. Jitendra Kumar Shukla v.
Union of India & Ors., which dismissed the said application filed by
the petitioner herein.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before this
Court that arguments in the said application were heard by the learned
AFT on 17.12.2021, however, the impugned order was pronounced 21
months thereafter, on 11.08.2023.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order does not even take note of the written submissions
that had been filed by the petitioner. He further submits that though
only the Confidential Report for the period from 01.07.2012 to
11.10.2012 was impugned in the application filed by the petitioner
before the learned AFT, the impugned order itself reflects that the
learned AFT has proceeded on the basis that other CRs of the
petitioner had also been impugned by the petitioner. He submits that
this error also crept in due to the delay in passing of the Impugned
Order.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
submits that the impugned order is well-reasoned and has considered
the records.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
8. From a bare perusal of the prayers made by the petitioner in the
Original Application filed before the learned AFT, it is apparent that
the petitioner had impugned only the ACR for the period from
01.07.2012 to 11.10.2012 before the learned AFT. The impugned
order, however, reflects that the learned AFT has considered the case
of the petitioner as if the other CRs had also been challenged before it
by the petitioner.
9. The fact that the arguments in the application had been finally
heard by the learned AFT on 17.12.2021, while the impugned order
has been pronounced on 11.08.2023, remains uncontroverted by the
respondents. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil
Rai v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318, in our view, this itself is a
sufficient ground to set aside the impugned order.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Original
Application filed by the petitioner is restored before the learned AFT.
11. Keeping in view that the Original Application was filed some
time on or about 27.10.2020, the learned AFT is requested to decide
the same expeditiously, remaining totally uninfluenced by any
observation made by it in its order dated 11.08.2023, which has been
set aside by this Court.
12. We clarify that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the challenge to the ACR made by the petitioner.
13. The parties shall appear before the learned AFT on 9th January,
2025.
14. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
NOVEMBER 5, 2024
RN/SJ
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
