Delhi High Court
Union Of India Secretary, Ministry Of ... vs Ex Sgt Chandan Kumar Singh on 22 April, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~64
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5022/2025, CM APPL. 23084/2025 & CM APPL.
23085/2025
UNION OF INDIA SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Padmesh Mishra and
Mr. Aditya, Advs.
Mr. Ajay Jain, Sr. Panel Counsel, Mr.
Krishna Sharma, Ms. Vijay Lakshmi, Mr.
Manoj Gautam, Mr. Kunaal Sharma, Mr.
Akul Singh Chalia, Mr. R.C. Bansal, Mr.
M.N. Mishra and Mr. Harshit Batra, Advs.
for UOI.
versus
EX SGT CHANDAN KUMAR SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr.
Nikunj Arora and Mr. V.S. Kadian, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
% 22.04.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This petition assails order dated 22 April 2024 passed by the
Armed Forces Tribunal1 in OA 512/2019 whereby the respondent's
application for grant of disability pension on the ground that he suffers
from Diabetes Mellitus Type-II2 has been allowed by the AFT relying
"the AFT", hereinafter
"DM-II", hereinafter
W.P.(C) 5022/2025
on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v UOI3.
2. The issue is covered by a recent decision rendered by us in UOI
v Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso4.
3. Nonetheless, we have heard Mr. Aditya, learned Counsel for the
petitioners, and have perused the record.
4. The respondent was released in Low Medical Category on his
being found to be suffering from DM-II. From the record, including
the proceedings of the Release Medical Board5, the following facts
emerged:
(i) The respondent had served in the Indian Air Force for
over 20 years before he was diagnosed as suffering from DM-II.
(ii) The respondent, in his self-declaration, specifically
declared that he had not been suffering from DM-II prior to
joining the Air Force. The declaration reads thus:
3. Did you suffer from any disability before joining the
Armed Forces? If so give details and dates: NO, N/A
The correctness of this declaration is not doubted either by the
RMB or by the petitioners before the AFT or before this Court.
(iii) The reason regarding the DM-II suffered by the
(2013) 7 SCC 316
2025 SCC OnLine Del 2018
"RMB", hereinafter
W.P.(C) 5022/2025
respondent has not been attributable to military service, as
entered by the RMB reads thus:
"DM TYPE 2 (Old) E 11, Z 09.0: Onset of disability on 26
Oct 2005 at Tezpur (Peace area). There was no delay in
diagnosis/Treatment. Individual has not served in field / Cl
Ops / HAA at the time of onset. Hence disability is not
attributable / not aggravated by service vide para 26 of
GMO 2008."
(iv) The Commanding Officer's certificate specifically states
that the respondent was not responsible, owing to any act or
omission of his, for the ailment from which he was suffering.
The entry in that regard reads as under:
5. (a) Was the disability attributable to individuals own negligence
or misconduct (If yes, in what way?) NO, N/A
(v) The RMB has certified the respondent as suffering from
20% disability on account of DM-II, life long.
5. Thus, we find that even the specialist who examined the
respondent did not arrive at any conclusion that the DM-II from which
the respondent suffered was not attributable to military service.
6. In such circumstances, we have held in our decision in Ex Sub
Gawas Anil Madso that the respondent would be entitled to disability
pension.
7. We do not deem it necessary to reproduce our findings in the
said decision, so as not to burden this judgment.
W.P.(C) 5022/2025
8. We have also been conscious of the fact that we are exercising
certiorari jurisdiction over the decision of the AFT and are not sitting
in appeal over the said decision.
9. The parameters of certiorari jurisdiction are delineated in the
following passages of Syed Yakoob v K.S. Radhakrishnan6:
"7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High
Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been
frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in
that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued
for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or
tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior
courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a
result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be
issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court
or Tribunal acts illegally or properly, as for instance, it decides a
question without giving an opportunity, be heard to the party
affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing
with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There
is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of
certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it
is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation
necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior
Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot
be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law
which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a
writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be.
In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of
certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said
finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible
and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible
evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a
finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as
an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In
dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear
in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be
challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground
that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the
1963 SSC OnLine SC 24
W.P.(C) 5022/2025
Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned
finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and
the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points
cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that
the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to
issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari
Vishnu Kamath v Syed Ahmad Ishaque7, Nagandra Nath Bora v
Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam8
and Kaushalya Devi v Bachittar Singh9.
8. It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately describe
what an error of law apparent on the face of the record means.
What can be corrected by a writ has to be an error of law; hut it
must be such an error of law as can be regarded as one which is
apparent on the face of the record. Where it is manifest or clear
that the conclusion of law recorded by an inferior Court or
Tribunal is based on an obvious mis-interpretation of the relevant
statutory provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it, or may be,
even in disregard of it, or is expressly founded on reasons which
are wrong in law, the said conclusion can be corrected by a writ of
certiorari. In all these cases, the impugned conclusion should be so
plainly inconsistent with the relevant statutory provision that no
difficulty is experienced by the High Court in holding that the said
error of law is apparent on the face of the record. It may also be
that in some cases, the impugned error of law may not be obvious
or patent on the face of the record as such and the Court may need
an argument to discover the said error; but there can be no doubt
that what can be corrected by a writ of certiorari is an error of law
and the said error must, on the whole, be of such a character as
would satisfy the test that it is an error of law apparent on the face
of the record. If a statutory provision is reasonably capable of two
constructions and one construction has been adopted by the inferior
Court or Tribunal, its conclusion may not necessarily or always be
open to correction by a writ of certiorari. In our opinion, it is
neither possible nor desirable to attempt either to define or to
describe adequately all cases of errors which can be appropriately
described as errors of law apparent on the face of the record.
Whether or not an impugned error is an error of law and an error of
law which is apparent on the face of the record, must always
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and upon the
nature and scope of the legal provision which is alleged to have
been misconstrued or contravened."
(Emphasis supplied)
(1955) 1 SCR 1104
(1958) SCR 1240
AIR 1960 SC 1168
W.P.(C) 5022/2025
10. Within the limited parameters of the certiorari jurisdiction and
keeping in view the facts of the case outlined hereinabove, we find no
cause to interfere with the impugned judgment of the AFT, which is
affirmed in its entirety.
11. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
12. Compliance with the impugned judgment of the AFT, if not
already ensured, be ensured within a period of four weeks from today.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
APRIL 22, 2025/AS
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
W.P.(C) 5022/2025
