Rajesh Tyagi vs Union Of India And Others

SI.No,Case No. 8c Details,Disposal

(a),"30 May 2011: OA 234/2011 filed before AFT (PB) New

Delhi challenging:

(a) Award of censure and its remission from Severe

Displeasure (Recordable) to Severe displeasure (Non

Recordable)

(b) Orders rejecting the non statutory and the statutory

complaints

c) CR 10/06- 08/07","02 Jun 2012: AFT (PB) New Delhi

disposed of OA 234/2011 and held

...2. We do not want to interfere in

the matter However, we leave it to

the petitioner to make a

representation to the respondents

that in changed circumstances the

respondents shll reconsider the

matter in the light of the order

passed by the Chief of the Army

Staff dated 24th April, 2009

whereby recorded warning has been

made non-recordable. The

authorities may consider the matter

sympathetically.

With observations, the petition is

disposed of with no order as to

costs.

(b),"Nov 2012: OA 33/2012 filed before AFT (RB) Guwahati

challenging (a) Award of censure and its remission from

Severe Displeasure (Recordable) to Severe Displeasure

(Non Recordable)

(b) CR 10/06- 08/07

(c) And also interim orders to withdraw the name of the

applicant from his next Selection Board","27 Dec 2012: AFT (RB) Guwahati

dismissed OA 33/2012 and held

“7…is thus seen that the case of

the applicant was duly examined at

various levels and reliefs as

appropriate were given. Thereafter

based on the direction of the

Principal Bench Armed Forces

Tribunal at Delhi, the Central

Government once again considered

the changed circumstances and

provided further relief as admissible

under the circumstances. That being

so, it must be held that the

applicant's case has received due

attention and consideration as

permissible.

9.... In light of the above there is

nothing that survives in the matter.

The OA is accordingly dismissed

being devoid of merit.'

(c),"13 Jan 2014: WP 264/2014 filed before Delhi High Court

against:

(a) Award of censure and its remission from Severe

Displeasure (Recordable) to Severe Displeasure

(NonRecordable)

(b) CR 10/06- 08/07 (c) Order dated 02.06.2011 passed by

AFT (PB) New Delhi in OA 234/2011","10 Apr 2015: Wp 264/2014

DISMISSED DUE TO LACK OF

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF

High Court to hear matters decided

by AFT

(d),"15 Apr 2019"" CA Diary No.13926/2019 filed before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court.","03 May 2019: Hon'bie Supreme

Court dismissed CA Diary

No.13926/2019 and held-

`...we do not find any reason to

interfere with the impugned order

dated 02.06.2011 passed by the

Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal

Bench, New Delhi.

Accordingly, the appeal is

dismissed.

Pending applications stand disposed

of.

However, it is open to the appellant

to challenge the order dated

07.10.2013 before the Armed

Forces Tribunal, subject to

limitation.’

In our considered view the applicant had been vigilant enough. He was before the Guwahati Bench of the Tribunal till 27t1 December, 2012 when",,

OA 33/2012 was disposed , of. Thereafter, when the order was passed on 7th October, 2013, he chose to keep quiet right from 7111October, 2013 till",,

May 2019 when he filed the instant original application. He only contends that he could not approach the Tribunal due to his ailment and father's,,

treatment. However, we find that on 13th January, 2014 he approached the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No.264/2014 challenging the order dated",,

211d June, 2011 passed by tills Tribunal in OA 234/2011. This writ petition was dismissed on 10th April, 2015 due to lack of jurisdiction and thereafter",,

on 15th April, 2019, he approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the said order. Apart from the fact that the ailments of the applicant are",,

not SQ serious or severe in nature which would have prevented him from approaching the Tribunal on time, he has been show causing his grievances",,

before various Courts with force during most of the period as has come on record. The impugned order was passed in the year 2013 and this,,

application filed after a period of more than six years, in our considered view, is hopelessly barred by the principles of delay and latches under Sections",,

21 and 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The delay having been not reasonably explained, we see no reason for indulgence in the matter.",,

MA 1802/2019 is, therefore, dismissed and consequently the OA 954/2019 also stands dismissed.",,