Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohanjit Singh vs Honble Armed Forces Tribunal And Others on 6 August, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
CWP-13999-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-13999-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.08.2024
MOHANJIT SINGH .......Petitioner
Versus
HON'BLE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL & ORS. ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Gursharan, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Verma, Sr. Panel Counsel
for the respondents-UOI.
SUDHIR SINGH, J.
Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated
25.08.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Armed Forces
Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, whereby the Original
Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed being barred by
limitation.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined Military
service on 05.02.1999, and after completion of basic military training
period, he was posted to SIKH LI Centre on 19.03.2000. While
serving with 6th SIKH LI, the petitioner was granted 10 days casual
leave w.e.f. 25.11.2005 to 04.12.2005, for shifting his family to his
authenticity of this order/judgment.
native village. The wife of the petitioner was suffering from alarming
disease which was under diagnose by the medical authorities. During
the said period of the leave of the petitioner, his wife had developed
serious health problems and the petitioner was required to attend his
ailing wife. Vide letter dated 02.12.2005, he reported the details of
medical reports and nature of disease suffered by his wife and had
sought extension of casual leave or grant him 30 days annual leave,
but the petitioner did not receive any reply. The petitioner ultimately
joined his duties on 10.02.2006. He was summarily tried under
Section 39(b) of the Army Act and 14 days' fine was imposed upon
him and his service were regularized as in continuation of period of
service. It is further the case of the petitioner that he was issued
movement orders dated 13.06.2006, and was directed to report for
duties to his parent Unit 6th SIKH LI, but on way he had received the
news about the deteriorating health of his wife and due to said reason,
the petitioner could not report for the duties at his unit. On
17.08.2006, the wife of the petitioner expired and vide letter dated
20.08.2006, he had apprised the Army authorities about the said fact.
It is further the case of the petitioner that he tried to report for the
duties, but he was not allowed to do so by the authorities. Thereafter
respondent No.4 issued an Apprehension Roll for the petitioner on the
ground that the petitioner was a deserter and ultimately, he was
dismissed from service to 07.05.2011.
3. The Original Application filed by the petitioner has been
dismissed by the learned AFT being barred by limitation. It was
noticed that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 07.05.2011,
authenticity of this order/judgment.
and he filed the Original Application on 02.12.2019 i.e. after the delay
of 8 years 8 months 216 days. It was further found that even if
assumed that the petitioner became mentally depressed and physically
unfit due to the untimely death of his wife, then also the alleged
incapacity on this count could not extend till 2019. It was further
found by the Tribunal that no proof regarding the mental illness and
physical incapability of the petitioner, was placed on record and that
the ignorance of law could not extend for 13 years.
4. We find that the order passed by the learned Tribunal
does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. It is the case of the
petitioner himself that on an earlier occasion, he had remained on
unauthorized leave and for that he was imposed 14 days' fine. On
13.06.2006, he was transferred to his parent Unit, but he failed to
report for the duties. The said conduct clearly shows that the petitioner
was in the habit of absconding from the duties. As a member of the
disciplined Force, the petitioner cannot be excepted to perform his
duties at his whims and fancies.
5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner had
challenged his dismissal order after a gap of nearly nine years. Neither
any sufficient cause was shown before the learned Tribunal nor any
such cause could be shown before this Court. It is settled law that a
litigant, who sleeps over his right, cannot be granted any benefit.
Thus, filing the Original Application before the learned Tribunal after
a delay of nearly nine years, was rightly held to be barred by
limitation.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
6. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the
present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
[ SUDHIR SINGH ]
JUDGE
[ KARAMJIT SINGH]
06.08.2024 JUDGE
Himanshu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment.
