Kerala High Court
Sebastian Thomas vs Union Of India on 1 July, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2024 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 7423 OF 2024
PETITIONER(S):
SEBASTIAN THOMAS
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O THOMAS CHERUKANAM HOUSE, PO- THIMIRI,
KANNUR, KERALA., PIN - 670581
BY ADVS.
V.JOHN MANI
SETHULAKSHMI K.K.
VARGHESE SABU
ABHIRAMI C. UNNI
VISHAL NAIR.A.
RESPONDENT(S):
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011
2 CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, COA'S SECRETARIAT
COAS'S SECRETARIAT INTERGRATED HEAD QUARTERS MINISTRY
OF DEFENSE(ARMY) SOUTH BLOCK, DHQ P.O, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110011
3 THE GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF
HQ EASTERN COMMAND, FORT WILLIAM, CALCUTTA.,
PIN - 700021
4 THE COLONEL (PERS)
ENGINEERS BRANCH, HQ EASTERN COMMAND,
FORT WILLIAM, CALCUTTA, PIN - 700021
5 THE OIC RECORDS
BENGAL ENGINEER GROUP RECORDS,
C/O 56 A.P.O, PIN - 900477
BY ADV
SRI.T.C.KRISHNA, SCGC
WP(C) NO. 7423 OF 2024 -2-
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 7423 OF 2024 -3-
JUDGMENT
EASWARAN S., J.
1. Petitioner before the Armed Force Tribunal,
Regional Bench, Kochi has come up with this writ
petition aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the
Tribunal in sustaining the defect noted by the Registry.
The short facts for the disposal of the present writ
petition are as follows:
2. The petitioner joined Army as Sepoy in ASC
Centre (South) Bangalore and successfully completed his
training on 26.04.1991. On 27.02.1997, the petitioner
filed a complaint highlighting certain violations in the
manner in which the name of the soldiers and vehicles
were issued. After some protracted proceedings, on
09.08.1997 the petitioner was charge sheeted and
ultimately after the proceedings was over, the petitioner
was tried by the summary Court martial, on 13.08.1997
and issued an order. Though the petitioner kept quiet
after 1997 and after nearly a lapse of twenty(20) years
for the first time on 15.02.2017 an application was made
before the competent authority to provide for the service
particulars of the petitioner. Thereafter, after a series of
proceedings, the petitioner was pursuing his claim
before the respondents. In 2023, the petitioner
approached the Tribunal and sought for quashing the
proceedings initiated against him and also the
punishment awarded by the Indian Army in summary
court martial Proceedings dated 14.08.1997. The
Original Application was presented before the Tribunal
on 17.11.2022. The Registry of the Armed Forces
Tribunal noticing the fact that the copy of the Summary
Court Martial proceedings had not been annexed,
refused to number the Original Application. Since the
petitioner did not cure the defects as noted by the office
of the Tribunal, the matter was placed before the Bench
and by Ext.P1 order dated 07.02.2023, the objection of
the Registry was affirmed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner Sri.V.John Mani and have perused the writ
petition and also the documents annexed to the writ
petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the Original
application by affirming the objection raised by the
Registry. The petitioners repeated request for supplying
the copy of the Summary Court Martial proceedings was
not successful and later it appears that the records of the
proceedings have been destroyed and therefore is not in
a position to produce the same as required by the
Registry.
5. We have considered the submissions raised
across the Bar.
6. On a perusal of the pleadings on record we find
that admittedly the Original Application is barred by
limitation and there is an application for condonation of
delay filed along with the Original Application. The
Court Martial proceedings as insisted by the Registry of
the Armed Forces Tribunal cannot be said to be
unreasonable. A requirement of production of the copy
of the Summary Court Martial proceedings cannot be
termed to be unreasonable. The main challenge to the
proceedings before the Tribunal is the awarding of the
punishment against the petitioner for which necessarily
the copy of the Summary Court Martial Proceedings are
required. There is no explanation forthcoming from the
side of the petitioner as to what step he took for getting
the copy of the proceedings. It is pertinent to note that
the petitioner had deliberately slacked over his rights
and the proceedings appears to have been taken way
back in the year 1997 and even before the constitution of
the Armed Force Tribunal, he had other remedies
available under law to secure the copy of the
proceedings which are now been insisted by the Registry
of the Armed Forces Tribunal.
In the above circumstances, we are not inclined to
exercise our discretionary jurisdiction against the order
passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. The order
impugned does not call for any interference as it does
not suffer from any jurisdictional error or infirmity under
law. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
vv
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7423/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBITP1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
07.02.2023 BY THE ARMED FORCE
TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, KOCHI IN
UNNUMBERED O.A(A) NO. OF 2023.
EXHIBITP2 TRUE COPY OF THE UNNUMBERED OA(A) N0.
2023 BY THE ARMED FORCE TRIBUNAL,
REGIONAL BENCH, KOCHI
