Writ petition seeking to overturn an Armed Forces Tribunal decision modifying dismissal to discharge was dismissed solely on grounds of delay and laches after a 13-year gap; court found petitioner's explanation involving his late advocate implausible.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~55
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ....Respondents Through: Mr. Kanav Vir Singh, SPC with Mr. Hussain Taqvi, G.P. along with Major Anish Muralidhar (Army)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
O R D E R % 08.08.2024
CM APPL. 45407/2024 (exemption)
W.P.(C) 11003/2024
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2024 at 12:36:45
petitioner learnt about the impugned order only in May, 2024 as Sh. B.S. Jain, the counsel engaged by him to pursue the proceedings on his behalf before the learned Tribunal, unfortunately expired during the pendency of the matter. His Associates who conducted the proceedings before the learned Tribunal on his behalf but did not inform him about the outcome of the case. 6. He submits that it is only after personal visits by the petitioner to the office of late Sh. B.S. Jain that his case file could be traced and was handed over to him in May, 2024. It was only then that he learnt about the impugned order. Accordingly, he has approached this Court on 31.07.2024 challenging the impugned order. 7. At the outset, we may note that the petitioner had earlier preferred a writ petition bearing no. 2689/2001 before this Court which was transferred to the learned Tribunal and it is the said petition which has been disposed of vide the impugned order. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner’s main ground of challenge to the dismissal order dated 03.09.1993 was that the respondents had disproportionately awarded him the penalty of dismissal from service without considering the nature of his misconduct. As noted hereinabove, the Tribunal has, vide the impugned order, modified the penalty of dismissal imposed on the petitioner to that of discharge.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2024 at 12:36:45
REKHA PALLI, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
AUGUST 8, 2024/ ns
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2024 at 12:36:45
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the 13-year delay in challenging the Tribunal's order, attributed to counsel's death, could justify entertaining the writ petition?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Brahamjit Singh
Union of India and Ors
Rekha Palli
Shalinder Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
