Dismissed

Major General Subhash Chandra Sharan (Retd) v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC6 Jan 2020W.P.(C)/19/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition for lack of maintainability, holding that a challenge to a service attachment order falls within the Armed Forces Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 3(o) of the AFT Act, following Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed declaring it not maintainable; the petitioner is directed to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal.

Major General Subhash Chandra Sharan (Retd) Vs Union of… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2020)

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 19/2020 and CM APPL.56/2020 (Stay)

¶4

MAJOR GENERAL SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARAN (RETD)

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr.T.Parshad, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Kirtiman Singh, CGSC and Mr.Taha Yasin, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

¶9

O R D E R % 06.01.2020

¶10

A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the Respondents to the maintainability of the present petition on two grounds. One is that the impugned order attaching the Petitioner to the Unit at Jodhpur is a „service matter‟ within the purview of Section 3 (o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (AFT Act) and that a challenge to the impugned attachment order can well be made before the AFT. It is submitted By Mr. Kirtiman Singh, learned counsel for the Respondents that in terms of the judgment dated 10^th May, 2019 of the Full Bench (FB) of the AFT in O.A. No. 965/2019 ( Major General M.S.Jaswal v. Union of India ), the Petitioner would have to first approach the AFT for relief.

¶11

Secondly, it is pointed out that the Petitioner has not in the present petition disclosed about his having filed Writ Petition (Criminal)

¶12

W.P.(C) 19/2020 Page 1 of 3

¶13

No.3614/2019 before the Single Judge of this Court in regard to „Invocation Policy‟ dated 23^rd March, 2007 read with Section 123 of the Army Act, 1950 in which a detailed order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 27^th December, 2019.

¶14

Learned counsel for the Petitioner on the other hand, states that the Petitioner cannot be remediless as regards the impugned attachment order. He contends that since the AFT has taken a view in M.S.Jaswal case (supra) interpreting the judgement of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Dharamvir Singh 2 019 (4) SCALE 559 , the Petitioner has no other recourse but to approach this Court.

¶15

Having examined the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh , the Court is of the view that para 15 thereof makes it clear that the High Court in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would not interfere with an attachment order since it falls within the purview of the expression “service matter” in Section 3(o) the AFT Act. Para 15 of the said judgment reads as under:

¶16

“15.The assumption of jurisdiction by the High Court in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was misconceived. We are also of the view that having regard to the definition of the expression “service matters” in Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 and the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal under Section 14, such a Writ Petition ought not to have been entertained by the High Court. The learned Single Judge should have exercised caution and ought to have been circumspect before he proceeded to stay an order of attachment. Such pre-emptive judicial strikes are unwarranted. The course of action followed by the Single Judge has serious repercussion for the maintenance of discipline in the

¶17

W.P.(C) 19/2020 Page 2 of 3

¶18

Army. Discipline is the essence of the organisation and structure of an Armed Force. Before concluding, we make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations, in the exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction which shall be dealt with in accordance with law. There is no merit in the alternate submission. This Court cannot take over the function of determining which unit the Respondent should be assigned, pending the disciplinary proceedings.”

¶19

In that view of the matter, the Court declines to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismisses the present petition on the ground of maintainability, leaving it open to the Petitioner to approach the AFT for appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶20

Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master.

¶21

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

¶22

TALWANT SINGH, J.

¶23

JANUARY 06, 2020 mr

¶24

W.P.(C) 19/2020 Page 3 of 3

Major General Subhash Chandra Sharan (Retd) v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Major General Subhash Chandra Sharan (Retd) v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India & Ors. Vs George F. Milton

Dbl-Evarascon Joint Venture Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

M/S Krbl Limited Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Amit Kumar Vs Union of India

Tushar Ranjan Mohanty Vs Union of India

Visskan Aviation Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Bureau of Civil Aviation and Security and Ors.

Anil Dutt Sharma Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Tarun Gautam Vs Medical Council of India & Ors.

Ajit Narayan Mahapatra and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ex. Hc/Gd Ved Pal Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vipul Kumar (Minor) through His Father Sh. Dharam Singh Yadav Vs Union of India and Anr.

Mohan Industries Vs India Overseas Bank

Union of India and Ors. Vs Sunder Singh

Union of India & Ors. Vs Shashi