High Court · 2025

Petition under Afticle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari by declaring the order passed in O.A. No.41 ot 2022, dtd.09-1 1-2023 on the file of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai, Circuit Bench at Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and to quash the same. lA NO: 1 oF 2024 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the order passed in o.A. No.4'r ot 2022, dtd. 09-11-2023 0n the fire of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai, Circuit Bench at Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.L.N.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Sole Respondent: SRI N.RAVI CHAUDHARI The Court made the following: ORDER !xJ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Writ Petition No.3 4234 of 2024 ORDER: Pe. the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abh,nand Kunar SlnuLLi) Aggrieved by the order dated O9.ll'2O23 passed 1n O.A.(A) No.41 of 2022 aTong with M'A'No'82 of 2022 by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai Circuit Bench, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri K.L.N. Raghavendra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri N' Ravi Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners had contended that the respondent was initially enrolled as Nursing Assistant in the Army Medical Corps on 25'04'1995 and subsequently, he was promoteci to the rank of Havildar' While the respondent was working as Nursing Assistant at Artillery Centre, Hyderabad, the respondent was involved in a question paper leakage incident that occurred on the intervening night of 28-2gth November, 2015' A team led by 2 AKS,J & ETD ' tvp 34234-202 Lt. Co1. B.S.Shekar.r,at has raided the Coaching Centre, Secunderabad and found the respondent there, who was instrumental in the leakage of question paper. The competent authority has granted sanction to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent 3 1.05.2016. Consequently, a Summar5r Court Martial was initiated on 30.O5.2019 and the same was concluded on

14.08.2019. Upon being found guilty in the Summary Court Martial proceedings, the respondent was imposed with a punishment of reduction by two ranks uide proceedings, dated 03.1O.2O2O

4. Aggrieved by the said punishment order, dated

03.1O.2O2O, the respondent has approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. (A)No.41 of 2022 along with M.A.No.S2 of 2022, challenging the punishment orders on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings r,r,ere initiated belatedly, which is contrar-y to Section I22 of Army Act, 1950 (for short, the Act') and the Tribunal was pleased to a,llow the O.A. in favour of the respondent and was pleased to set aside the punishment, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. f I I 3 AKS,J & ETD,J w 31234 ',2021

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners had further contended that the three (3) years of limitation prescribed under Section 122 of the Act for competition of proceedings have to be understood from the date of granting sanction bv the competent authority. Admittedly, in the instant case, the competent authority has granted sanction to initiate clisciplinary proceedings against the respondent on

31.05.20i6 and the Summary Court Martiai proceedings were initiated on 30.O5.2O19 i.e., well within a period of three (3) years. The Tribunal had erroneously set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the limitation period starts from the date of offence and the Summar5r Court Martial proceedings were not initiated within a period of three years. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners had further contended that though the Tribunal had come to a conclusion that the respondent was found guilty of the offence, it had set aside the punishment on the ground of Iimitation. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the order, dated 09'11'2023 passed in O.A.(A) No.41 of 2022 along with M'A'No'82 of 2022, dated Og.Il.2O23 by the Tribunal and allow the Writ PQtition. t ___- 4 AKS,.J & ETD,J wp 34234 2O2a

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent had contended that Section 122 (ll (a) of the Act specifically states that within three years from the date of offence, the disciplinarl, proceedings have to be initiated. Admittediy, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 30.0s.2or9 and the same were concluded on 14.0g.2019, which was contrary to Section 122 of the Act. The Tribunal has rightly set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent contrary to Section L22 of the Act. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the Same is liable to be dismissed.

7. This Court, having considered the submissions made by both the parties, is of the view that a perusal of Section 122 (Il (a) of the Act categorically states that the disciplinary proceedings have to be initiated u,ithin three years from the date of offence. Admittedly, in the instant case, the raid was conducted on November,2OlS by the Lt. Col. ts.S. Shekawat and the petitioners were aware about the offence committed by the respondent. As per Section 122 (l) (a) of the Act, the disciplinary proceedings have to be initiated by November, 2O 18. Admittedly, in the instant case, the discipiinary I 5 AKS,J & ETD,J \w 34234 2021 proceedings have commenced only on 31.05.2016, which is well beyond the time prescribed in Section 122 (ll (a) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the O.A. by setting aside the order of punishment. in favour of the respondent. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal.

8. With the above observations, the Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 9 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed- oro'rY;I*rt$ltffi[ /ITRUE COPY'/ SE OFFICER To, One CC to SRI K'L N RAGHAVENDRA REDDY' Advocate IOPUCI to SRI N RAVI CHAUDHARI' Advocate [oPUCl ;;" "" Two CD CoPies

3. BSR BM ( i HIGH COURT DATED:1610612025 ORDER WP.No.34234 of 2024 o ,/I <.. -rt o (J \ rlE S t A r(. a o 19 rlJB 20[ | t D5 .s D Al a.' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ?tl- A 1\