Wife of a Sepoy dismissed as a deserter challenged the Armed Forces Tribunal's dismissal of her husband's OA for delay and laches. The Court upheld the Tribunal, noting the husband waited nine years after the Allahabad High Court's 2003 order and sought restoration only after eight years.
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.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
% Date of decision: February 09, 2024
(27) SMT RAJESH DEVI
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.K. Mishra and Mr. Roshan Kumar, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
..... Respondents Through: Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Adv. with Major Partho Katyayan.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 8023/2024
“In view of the above circumstances, it is most respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
(b) Pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH DASTIDAR Signing Date: 12.0 2.2024 16:16:58
W.P.(C) 11909/2023
Page 1
W.P.(C) 11909/2023
“9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the applicant was declared as a deserter and after conducting a Court of Inquiry he had been dismissed / declared as a deserter in August 1999 and thereafter the applicant has not taken any steps to ventilate his grievance either with the Competent Authority of the department or by approaching the contempt Court of law within the period prescribed under law. There is an unexplained inordinate delay and laches and the delay and laches in invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal has not been properly explained in the application condonation of delay. That apart, even on merit the applicant except for contending that he had intimated the authorities about his wife’s accident, has not brought on record any cogent evidence or material to justify his action. That apart, now as per the learned counsel for the respondents after a period of more than twenty two years, even the records pertaining to the matter are not available and they are unable to defend the matter.
10. Accordingly; finding no case to interfere in the matter on account of inordinate delay and laches on the part of the applicant, the OA is dismissed.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH DASTIDAR Signing Date: 12.0 2.2024 16:16:58
W.P.(C) 11909/2023
Page 2
husband of the petitioner joined the Army as Sepoy on February 28, 1988. After undergoing requisite training, he was posted at Firozpur, Punjab. On August 10, 1999, he applied for 20 days leave up to August 29, 1999 and proceeded to his home town. On returning the Unit, he was not allowed to enter the same. Subsequently, he reported to the ASC record, Gaya, but nothing was informed to him.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH DASTIDAR Signing Date: 12.0 2.2024 16:16:58
W.P.(C) 11909/2023
Page 3
reproduced in paragraph 5 above. The submission of Mr. Mishra is that the respondents could not have discharged / dismissed the husband of the petitioner without complying with the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, at least it was required for the respondents / authority to issue a showcause notice before taking a final action on dismissal / discharge.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH DASTIDAR Signing Date: 12.0 2.2024 16:16:58
W.P.(C) 11909/2023
Page 4
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
FEBRUARY 09, 2024 /jg
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH DASTIDAR Signing Date: 12.0 2.2024 16:16:58
W.P.(C) 11909/2023
Page 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the OA challenging the 1999 dismissal from the Army on grounds of delay and laches.
Whether non-service of the dismissal order excused the 9-year delay in approaching the Tribunal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT RAJESH DEVI
UNION OF INDIA
V. KAMESWAR RAO
SAURABH BANERJEE
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
