Delhi High Court
798337 R Ex Sgt R C Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 26 May, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~111
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 26.05.2025
+ W.P.(C) 7321/2025
798337-R EX- SGT R C SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar and Ms.
Anjali Prasad, Advs. along with
petitioner in person.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra
and Mr. Tribhuvan, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 16203/2025 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 7321/2025
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the
Order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, 'Tribunal') in
application, being M. A. 1833/2025, filed in O.A. No. 858/2019, titled
Ex. Sgt. R. C. Singh (Convict) v. Union of India & Ors., dismissing
the same.
3. The above application has been filed by the petitioner under
Rule 25 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008,
seeking stay of the Order of conviction and sentence passed against
him by the District Court Martial (hereinafter referred to as, 'DCM').
4. The learned Tribunal, in the Impugned Order, observed that the
petitioner has been granted bail and the sentence awarded to him has
been suspended, vide its Order dated 24.05.2019. The learned
Tribunal further observed that the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner in support of the plea of suspension of
conviction and sentence, are matters to be determined at the time of
hearing of the O.A. It further held that given the nature of the offence,
the petitioner cannot be reinstated during the pendency of the O.A..
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges
framed against the petitioner are completely false and originate from a
complaint made by one Sh. Nurul Hassan, SDO (Phones), BSNL,
Ghaziabad. He further submits that in the DCM, however, the superior
of the complainant stated that the said complaint was not to his
knowledge nor had it been filed after taking approval of the
Competent Authority. He contends that once the complaint itself is
found to be false, the entire DCM proceedings would automatically
fail. He further contends that even otherwise, there was no evidence to
proceed against the petitioner or for finding him guilty in the DCM. In
support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies
upon Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2007) 2 SCC
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, however, find no merit in the same.
7. The petitioner has been charged on the following offences:
"a) First Charge: Under section 65 of AF Act
1950 an act prejudicial to good order and
discipline in that Sgt RC Singh at 28 Wg AF on
21 Apr 16 on being asked for an explanation
by Wg Cdr Pranav Sharma 27170 AE (L) of 28
Wg AF wrt complaint dated 01 Apr 16
submitted against him by Sh. Noorul Hasan,
SDO (Phones) BSNL Ghaziabad vide letter no.
SDOP/ SHE/ AFH/ Official Corr/01 dated 01
Apr 16 walked out of office of said Wg Cdr
Pranav Sharma in an arrogant manner and
without paying compliments.
b) Second Charge: Under section 40(c) of AF
Act 1950 using insubordinate language to his
superior officer at 28 Wg AF on 22 Apr 16 on
being handed over 28 Wg letter no. 28W/S
2719/6/Com&IT dated 22 Apr 16 along with
the complaint of Sh. Nooml Hasan dated 01
Apr 16 by 689869-K JWO RK Sharma Photo
Fit of 28 Wg AF threw the said letter onto
JWO RK Sharma and said "You can add this
charge also", or words to that effect.
c) Third Charge: Under section 40(c) of AF
Act 1950 using insubordinate language to his
superior officer at 28 Wg AF on 22 Apr 16 on
being told by Wg Cdr Pranav Sharma 27170
AE(L) of 28 Wg AF to leave her office, said to
Wg Cdr Pranav Sharma (fuck off or words to
that effect.
d) Fourth Charge: Under section 65 of AF Act
1950 an act prejudicial to good order and
discipline at BSNL office Ghaziabad on 01 Apr
16 threatened Sh. Noorul Hasan SDO
(Phones) BSNL Ghaziabad by saying "I will
kill you" or words to that effect."
8. From the above, it would be apparent that the charge against the
petitioner is of insubordination and using foul language. The veracity
of the original complaint made by Sh. Nurul Hassan, does not appear
to have been the prime focus of the Competent Authority, or even the
DCM while convicting the petitioner.
9. As noted hereinabove, the O.A. has been pending adjudication
before the learned Tribunal since the year 2019. The petitioner has
been dismissed from the service and also sentenced on the basis of the
finding of the DCM. The legality of these orders will have to be tested
by the learned Tribunal. At this stage, therefore, a case for suspension
of the conviction and sentence is not made out by the petitioner. We
may also note that the Supreme Court in Shyam Narain Pandey v.
State of U.P., (2014) 8 SCC 909, after considering the judgment in
Navjot Singh Sidhu (supra), has held that the accused must show
cogent reasons for seeking suspension of sentence, and mere loss of
job cannot be held to be an exceptional case for staying the conviction.
10. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same
is dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
MAY 26, 2025
p/kz/VS
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
