Rambir Singh vs Union Of India and Others

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—Tried at a summary court martial from August 03, 1993 to August 05, 1993, and being found guilty of the second and third charge and acquittal of the first, sentence imposed upon the petitioner was to be reduced to the ranks. As a result whereof the petitioner was required to be discharged from service on account of the fact that the rank to which he got reduced had a lower age of superannuation. The petitioner alleges that his statutory petition u/s 164(2) of the Army Act questioning the order passed on August 03, 1993 by the Summary Court Martial was filed by him but not being decided, he had filed W.P.(C) No. 1315/1997 in which the following order had been passed on April 28, 1997.

28.4.1997

Present:-Mr.M.N. Gupta for petitioner.

C.W.No. 1315/1997.

In this case, the petitioner is questioning summary court martial order passed on 3.8.1993. The petitioner submits that he has filed a statutory complaint and the same has yet not been disposed of.

In these circumstances, I direct the respondents to dispose of the statutory complaint filed by the petitioner within 8 weeks of the receipt of this order. No further directions are necessary.

The writ petition and C.M. are accordingly disposed of.

As per the petitioner, he never heard anything from the respondents with respect to his statutory complaint requiring him to file another statutory complaint on June 15, 2010 which stands rejected vide impugned order dated January 11, 2012.

Relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition is to quash the findings and the sentence at the Summary Court Martial and to restore the service of the petitioner with the ranks and thereafter grant consequential relief of promotion, wages etc.

Now, it is unfortunate that W.P.(C) No. 1315/1997 was disposed of on the very first date of hearing without any notice issued to the respondents. We highlight that in the said year there was no practice followed in the Delhi High Court of serving advance copies of the writ petition to the respondents. The writ petition stands disposed of as recorded in the order dated April 28, 1997, upon the belief that the petitioner had filed a statutory complaint.

As per the respondents they are unaware of any such statutory complaint being filed.

Now, if the petitioner had filed a statutory complaint which, as per order dated April 28, 1997, had to be disposed of within eight weeks, we see no reason why the petitioner either did not initiate action for contempt against the respondents or filed an application in W.P.(C) No. 1315/1997 bringing it to the notice of this Court that the order of the Court is not complied with. Had the petitioner done so, the respondents could have informed the Court; a fact which they inform today, that they are unaware of any statutory complaint being filed.

The petitioner is to be blamed for keeping quiet for over twelve years and then raking up an issue of his statutory complaint not being decided when he filed a representation on June 15, 2010.

We highlight that the petitioner was released/discharged from service on attaining the age of superannuation in the reduced ranks on January 31, 1996, and today in the year 2012 it would be too late in the day to even re-consider the matter. On delay and latches the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.