Dismissed

U.O.I. Th. Home Deptt.and Ors. v. Jadhav Sesh Rao and Anr.

J&K HC10 Sept 2021LPA/60/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a Single Judge order setting aside a military-style disciplinary punishment. The court held the Writ Court was correct that an unsigned guilt statement was inadmissible, and fresh punishment was barred by double jeopardy principles. It directed the appellant to regulate the respondent's absence period.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; respondent directed to settle period of absence.

U.O.I. Th. Home Deptt.and Ors. Vs Jadhav Sesh Rao… — Municipal and Town Planning | J&K HC (2021)

¶1

Sr. No. 11

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

CJ Court

¶4

Case: CDLSW No. 27 of 2019 In LPA No. 60 of 2019

¶5

Union of India and others

¶6

…Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

¶7

Through: Sh. Vishal Sharma, ASGI

¶8

V/s

¶9

Jadhav Sesh Rao and another …. Respondent(s)

¶10

Through: None

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The appeal is reported to be filed beyond 62 days.

¶15

On the delay condonation application, notices were sent to the respondents but despite service no one has put in appearance and filed objections to the delay condonation application.

¶16

We have considered the averments made in the delay condonation

¶17

application and are satisfied that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time, accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶18

Application CDLSW No. 27 of 2019 is disposed of.

¶19

Heard Sh. Vishal Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of

¶20

India.

¶21

The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the petition filed by respondent No. 1.

¶22

2 CDLSW N0. 27 of 2019 & LPA No. 60 of 2019

¶23

The facts reveal that respondent No. 1 was deputed in the BSF and on the ground that he has not reported on duty and had remained absent for 12 days without any information and leave, he was punished with seven days of rigours imprisonment. The said order of punishment was passed on the basis of his statement pleading guilty recorded by the Commandant. The learned Single Judge has set-aside the order of punishment on the ground that the statement was inadmissible as it was not signed by the respondent. It is not disputed that the statement of the respondent was not signed by him therefore, we do not think that the said statement could have been relied and made the basis for imposing the punishment. There is no error or illegality in the judgment and order passed by the writ court.

¶24

Sh. Vishal Sharma, in the end submits that the writ court in setting aside the order of punishment has not left it open for the authorities to take fresh action which is necessary as in a discipline force such kind of omission cannot be allowed to go unpunished.

¶25

We do not find any merit in the above submission inasmuch as the respondent has already undergone seven days of imprisonment which was imposed upon him. Therefore, he cannot be punished again for the same offence.

¶26

The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶27

The appellant may settle the period of absence of the respondent in accordance with law.

¶28

(RAJNESH OSWAL) (PANKAJ MITHAL) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶29

Jammu 10.09.2021 SUNIL-I

¶30

: Yes/No : Yes/No

¶31

Whether the order is speaking? Whether the order is reportable?

U.O.I. Th. Home Deptt.and Ors. v. Jadhav Sesh Rao and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.O.I. Th. Home Deptt.and Ors. v. Jadhav Sesh Rao and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar and Others Vs Union of India Th Secretary Ministry of Defence and Others

Modern Papers Th Authorised Signatory Jetinder Reshi, Manager Plant Operation Vs Union of India Th Secretary Department of Revenue Ministry of Finance

Crystal Crop Protection Limited Th Sanjay Sharma Vs Union of India Th Secretary Deptt of Revenue Ministry of Finance and Others

Krishan Singh Vs State of J and K

U.O.I. Th. Home Deptt.and Ors. Vs Jadhav Sesh Rao and Anr.

Madan Lal Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Secretary Revenue Deptt and Others