Delhi High Court
964377-S Lac Tarun Kumar Patel Prop Fit vs Union Of India, Through Secretary & Ors on 14 November, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 17295/2025, CM APPL. 71228/2025 & CM APPL.
71229/2025
964377-S LAC TARUN KUMAR
PATEL PROP FIT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishwajit Kumar Singh and
Mr. Dinkar Mishra, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH
SECRETARY & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Shagun Shahi Chugh, SPC
with Mr. Yudhveer Singh, Adv.
Sgt. Mindu & Sgt. Vikas
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 14.11.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This petition is directed against order dated 3 September 2025
passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Branch, New Delhi1.
2. The main prayer of the petitioner before the AFT was that he
should be permitted to appear in the Corporal Promotion
Examination2. Even prior to approaching the AFT, the petitioner had
been issued a show cause notice dated 20 May 2025, which was
1 "AFT" hereinafter
2 "CPE" hereinafter
predicated on the premise that the petitioner had exhausted three
chances of appearing in the CPE and that the maximum period
available to the petitioner for the said purpose, of 11 years, had
expired. On the premise that the petitioner had, therefore, exhausted
all possible chances of appearing in the CPE, the show cause notice
proposed to convey a tentative view that the petitioner was unsuitable
for retention in the Air Force and, therefore, proposed his discharge
from service.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner had submitted a reply to the show
cause notice which was pending on the date when the petitioner
moved the AFT.
4. The AFT has, in these circumstances, refused to interfere, at
this stage, as the show cause notice was pending adjudication.
5. Aggrieved by the decision of the AFT, the petitioner has
approached this Court.
6. We see no error in the view adopted by the AFT.
7. Mr. Dinkar Mishra, who appears for the petitioner, submits that,
in fact, the petitioner had later been given a waiver of his first chance
to appear in the CPE and had, therefore, to his credit, one more chance
to appear in the CPE. It was, for this reason, he submits, that the
petitioner sought for issuance of a direction to the respondents to
permit him to appear in the CPE and further consequential reliefs.
8. The show cause notice which is pending adjudication is
predicated on the premise that the petitioner has exhausted all his
chances of appearing in the CPE. If it is the petitioner's case that he
has one more chance available to him, it is for him to convince the
authority issuing the show cause notice in that regard.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has also
submitted a statutory complaint under Section 26 of the Air Force Act,
1950, on 8 September 2025, which is pending adjudication.
10. Notably, this complaint was submitted even after the OA had
been dismissed by the AFT.
11. We, therefore, do not see how the petitioner can seek any
benefit on the basis of the said statutory complaint.
12. Nonetheless, in order to ensure that substantial justice is done,
we permit the petitioner to file a supplementary response to the show
cause notice within a period of one week from today, in which the
petitioner would be at liberty to take any additional ground, as he may
choose, including the grounds taken in the statutory complaint. We are
inclined to pass this direction only because the show cause notice is
still pending decision.
13. Subject to the aforesaid limited caveat, we decline to interfere
with the order passed by the AFT.
14. The writ petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J
NOVEMBER 14, 2025/AR
