Punjab-Haryana High Court
Major Deepak Punia vs Union Of India And Others on 6 August, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
CWP-2109-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-2109-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.08.2024
MAJOR DEEPAK PUNIA
...Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Verma, Sr. Panel Counsel
for the respondents-UOI.
SUDHIR SINGH, J.
The present petition has been filed against the order
dated 24.11.2023, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (For short
'the AFT'), whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner
was dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as maintainability.
2. The petitioner is a Commissioned Officer and he got
married to Ms. Ankita on 19.04.2019. The said marriage did not last
for very long. The differences between the parties led to inter-se
litigation between them. A show cause notice dated 11.01.2021 was
issued to the petitioner contemplating an administrative action against
him for his misdemeanours. He submitted a reply dated 17.02.2021,
but it was not found unsatisfactory and consequentially vide order
dated 16.03.2021, the petitioner was awarded a "Displeasure". It is
authenticity of this order/judgment.
the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid administrative action has
the operational effect for 10 years and it will hamper his carrier as the
said "Displeasure" would seriously affect the chances of his
promotion.
3. The Original Application filed by the petitioner before
the AFT was dismissed, firstly on the ground of delay. It was found
by the learned AFT that the petitioner had failed to show any
sufficient cause so as to warrant condonation of delay and that a
litigant cannot be permitted to challenge an order whenever he deems
fit convenient to do so.
4. While referring to Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces
Tribunal Act 2007 (for short 'the Act'), it was found that the issue
raised by the petitioner did not fall within the definition of service
matters and, therefore, the Original Application was held to be not
maintainable.
5. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has submitted that the impugned action of the authorities
awarding "Displeasure" to the petitioner is an administrative order. It
is further submitted that such administrative order, having operational
force for 10 years, is seriously affecting the carrier of the petitioner
and, therefore, the AFT has a jurisdiction to examine the legality of
the impugned action. But the learned AFT did not take into
consideration the said aspect the matter and proceeded on to hold that
the Original Application filed by the petitioner was barred by
limitation.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
6. As regards maintainability, it is argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the "Displeasure" being censure in
nature, is an administrative order and thus, the same is amenable to
the jurisdiction of the AFT. He relies upon the judgment of the Armed
Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Col S.K. Singh Vs.
Union of India and Ors. OA-1725/2021 decided on 07.11.2023,
wherein an order awarding censure against the applicant therein (an
Army Officer), was adjudicated upon. Reliance is also placed upon
the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Col. Sandeep Sharma Vs.
Union of India and Ors. in W.P.(C) 7541/2023 & CM APPL/
29232/2023 decided on 28.05.2024. It is, thus, submitted that once the
controversy involving the similar issue has been adjudicated upon by
the Principal Bench of the AFT, the dismissal of the Original
Application filed by the petitioner by learned AFT, is legally not
sustainable.
7. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Union of India, though defends the impugned order passed
by the AFT, yet he does not controvert the factum of the aforesaid
order passed by the Principal Bench of the learned AFT.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the short
question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the
impugned order passed by the Army Authorities awarding
"Displeasure" to the petitioner, falls within the jurisdiction of the
AFT.
9. It is not disputed that the action of the Army Authorities
in awarding censure to the petitioner is an administrative decision. It
authenticity of this order/judgment.
is also not disputed that the said order has the operational force for 10
years, affecting the promotional avenues of the petitioner. Thus,
against such administrative action, in our opinion, the learned AFT,
has got the jurisdiction to examine its legality.
10. Moreso the controversy involved in the present petition,
is covered by the decision of the Principal Bench of the learned AFT
in Col S.K. Singh (supra).
11. As before the learned AFT, the petitioner had taken
grounds for approaching the Tribunal belatedly, but in our opinion the
period of 06 months, particularly when it is stand of the petitioner that
the severity of the order of "Displeasure" came to his knowledge,
during the matrimonial proceedings, when such order was produced
by his wife, it cannot be said that the present one is a case where there
is a deliberate or willful delay on the part of the petitioner.
13. In view of the above, we allow the present petition and
set aside the order dated 24.11.2023, passed by the learned AFT.
Accordingly the matter is remitted to the learned AFT to decide the
same on merits. As there appears to be no deliberate or willful delay
on the part of the petitioner, we hope that the learned AFT will decide
the matter on merits, uninfluenced by the delay part, if any.
[ SUDHIR SINGH ]
JUDGE
[ KARAMJIT SINGH]
06.08.2024 JUDGE
Himanshu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment.
