B. Chakravarty vs Union Of India And Others

In pursuance to the submissions made by Mr. Harish on 2nd November, 2020 when the matter is taken up today, Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel

for the appellant refers to the prayers made in para 8 and argues that the application has not been rendered infructuous. The prayers made in para 8

read as under:-

(a) To quash the impugned letter dated 13.011.2019 canceling the SCN dated 31.05.2019, being legally unsustainable and contrary to Respondent's

own policy letter on the subject.

(b) To quash the invocation of the provisions of Army Act section 123 vide IHQ of MoD (Army) of Staff, HQ Eastern Command Kolkata.

(c) To quash the attachment order No. 201650/1/A1 (DV-2) dated 09.09.2018 issued by HQ Eastern Command.

(d) To direct the respondents to relieve the Applicant of all consequences emanating due to cancellation of show cause notice 31.05.2019 and

invocation of the provision of Army Act section 123 and dispose of the case with the award of contemplated censure based on the merits of the case

in a time bound manner.

(e) To pass any other or further orders, this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem appropriate, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the

interests of justice.

However, Mr. Harish points out that as far as the question of attachment of the appellant, made vide order dated 9th September, 2018 is concerned,

once the proceedings have come to an end; final order passed, which has been confirmed by the competent authority, operation of the attachment

automatically comes to an end and thereafter nothing survives in the attachment order and therefore he submits that no further orders are necessary

with regard to prayer 8 (c). As far as the other prayers are concerned, it is submitted they are now to be challenged while challenging the

confirmation order, further proceedings now in this application, without challenging the confirmation order, is not permissible, therefore, prayer 8 (a)

and 8 (b), cannot be considered now in this application.

Taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that now due to subsequent developments

that have taken place, as stated by Mr. Harish on 2nd November, 2020, this application stands rendered infructu.ous. However, liberty shall be

available to the appellant to challenge the order of confirmation and while doing so he shall have the liberty to prosecute prayers 8 (a) and 8(b) afresh.

As far as prayer 8 (c) is concerned, taking note of the statement made by Mr. Harish, we see no reason to pass any separate order, all consequences

due to the lapsing of the attachment order, as stated by Mr. Harish, shall be given effect to.

In view of the above, the matter stands disposed