Dismissed

Colonel a. D. Nargolkar v. the Union of India, through Defence Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Jul 2014PIL/114/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the non-supply of enquiry documents to delinquent officers in the Armed Forces. The bench held that no general declaration could be made and dismissed the petition, noting the matter concerns personal service records where other forums may be appropriate.

What did the court decide?

No general declaration could be given; petition dismissed on maintainability grounds and specific legal observations regarding Rule 184 of Army Rules.

Colonel a. D. Nargolkar Vs the Union of India, through… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1/3

¶2

114.13-pil.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 114 OF 2013

¶5

Colonel A.D.Nargolkar. V/s.	...	Petitioner.
The Union of India and another.	...	Respondents.

¶6

The petitioner in person.

¶7

S.S.Pakale with Mrs.S.V.Bharucha for the respondents.

¶8

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. DATED : 30th July 2014.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Heard petitioner in person and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶11

The petitioner appearing in person submits that in the Armed Forces during the course of preliminary enquiry and at the conclusion of the same the copies of the statements and relevant documents are not supplied to the delinquent officer, whereas in the Navy and Air Force, the normal practice is to supply copies of the relevant documents to the delinquent officer during the course of enquiry or on its conclusion. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar , AIR 1994 SC

¶12

2/3 114.13-pil.sxw

¶13

1074 and the judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court in the case of R.K.Sareen v. Union of India dated 17^th February 2011. It is further submitted that the Jawans/ Officers have to spend substantial amount on contesting matter on issues, interalia; for non-supply of material documents during the course of enquiry. This could be avoided if the authorities of Armed Forces, as a normal rule and procedure, adopt a policy to supply the documents to the delinquent officer.

¶14

The respondents have filed affidavit-in-reply. Reliance is placed on Article 33 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Major General Inder Jit Kumar v. Union of India delivered on 20^th March 2007 wherein the Apex Court has observed that rule184 of the Army Rules, 1954 provides that person who is tried by a Court Martial shall be entitled to copies of such statements and documents contained in the proceedings of a court of inquiry as are relevant to his prosecution or defence at his trial. It was further observed that there is no provision for supplying the accused with the copy of the report of the court of enquiry.

¶15

We have perused the record placed before us. The learned counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition. He submitted that the petitioner had faced some enquiry and had approached appropriate forum/court in respect of grievances concerning his personal service record. It is also submitted by learned counsel that public interest litigation in service matters is not maintainable. Rule 184 of the Army Rules is reproduced in

¶16

114.13-pil.sxw

¶17

the judgment of Delhi High Court in case of R.K.Sareen v. Union of India (supra) which reads as under:

¶18

“ 184. Right of certain persons to copies of statements and documents – (1) Any person subject to the Act who is tried by a court-martial shall be entitled to copies of such statements and documents contained in the proceedings of a court of inquiry, as are relevant to his prosecution or defence at his trial.

¶19

(2) Any person subject to the Act whose character or military reputation is affected by the evidence before a court of inquiry shall be entitled to copies of such statements and documents as have a bearing on his character or military reputation as aforesaid unless the Chief of Army Staff for reasons recorded by him in writing, orders otherwise.”

¶20

In substance, the petitioner's request is for direction by way of declaration that authorities of the Armed Forces shall follow the practice of supplying the copies of the statements and documents to the delinquent officer during the course of enquiry. We are of the considered opinion that in view of the provisions of rule 184 of the Army Rules and the judgments delivered by the Courts of Law in this aspect, no such general declaration could be given. With this observation, petition is dismissed.

¶21

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶22

(NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶23

Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S..

Colonel a. D. Nargolkar v. the Union of India, through Defence Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Colonel a. D. Nargolkar v. the Union of India, through Defence Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Gajanan Damodar Shelar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shashikant Anant Adhyapak and Ors. Vs the City Engineer - Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Oneil Kinny and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sonal S. Khanolkar and Anr. Vs Union of India, through Director, Dept of Personnel and Training and Ors.

Manik Trimbak Wakde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pradeep Prahlad Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Arvind Govardhandas Kansara and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Mahesh Lumaji Parulekar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Ors. Vs Shri. Sagar G. Chikshhe

Vasant K. Thakur and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Neeta Amit Khardikar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Dept of School Education and Sports and Ors.

Shri. Arun Uttareshwar Barbole Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Chandrakant Pandurang Jadhav Vs the Union of India, Thorugh Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Dept of Revenue and Ors.

Th State of Maharashtra, through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Dept and Anr. Vs Shri. Omprakash B. Jedia