Union Of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Defence New vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer :- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow in O.A. No.175 of 2019 contained as Annexure No.3 in interest of justice.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent was enrolled as a Sepoy in the Kumaon Regiment on 27.08.1996. On 19.12.2001, the Kumaon Regiment moved from Solan, Himachal Pradesh Khemkaran, Punjab for Operation Parakram. On 02.07.2002, the respondent was posted back at Solan, Himachal Pradesh with the rear party. He was assigned guard duty at the residential quarter of Major S.K. Anand.

4. On 04.08.2002, at around 8:00 p.m., the respondent reported to Naik Trilochan Dwivedi that a theft of Rs. 3,000/- had taken place in his room. When Naik Trilochan Dwivedi reached the spot and investigated the matter, the respondent changed his stand. He stated that he had gone outside for some work and, when he returned, he had found the doors of Major S.K. Anand's house open. Naik Trilochan Dwivedi found that nothing had been stolen from the respondent's room but that a theft had indeed taken place in Major S.K. Anand's house. 2 WRIA No. 13155 of 2025

5. Major S.K. Anand returned from the operational area and investigated the matter. He suspected that the respondent was involved in the theft. Police assistance had already been taken on

06.08.2002 and a police team had visited the site of the theft and also the room of the respondent and found certain objectionable items but nothing which would connect the respondent to the theft that took place in Major S.K. Anand’s house. The police team wanted to take the respondent into their custody, but Major S.K. Anand refused to hand over the respondent to police custody.

6. On 07.08.2002, the respondent was despatched to the operational area along with Major (now Colonel) D.D. Baloni. On 25.09.2002, the respondent wrote a letter to the Commander, 95 Infantry Brigade, with copies to the General Officer Commanding, 9 Infantry Division, 11 Corps, and the Chief of the Army Staff, alleging ill-treatment by Major S.K. Anand on the pretext of his suspected involvement in the theft case.

7. A Staff Court of Inquiry was ordered to investigate the allegations made by the respondent. It concluded that no manhandling or ill- treatment had been meted out by Major S.K. Anand to the respondent. It recommended initiation of disciplinary action against the respondent for making false allegations against his superior officer and for not adhering to the chain of command while reporting his grievance.

8. The respondent was dismissed from service w.e.f. 06.04.2003. He filed an appeal against the order of dismissal and against the order dated 19.10.2004 rejecting his representation by the appellate authority. His appeal was partly allowed by the Chief of Army Staff and his dismissal was converted into discharge from service. The respondent challenged both the dismissal and discharge orders in O.A. (A) No. 175 of 2019, which was allowed by the Armed Forces Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order.

9. The respondent stated before the higher authority that while in custody on the night of 05.08.2002, he was physically tortured and burnt on his back and hip at the instance of Major S.K. Anand. He further alleged that he was continuously kept in custody and was not 3 WRIA No. 13155 of 2025 allowed to talk to his family members. He made a complaint to the Commanding Officer through proper channel, but his grievance was not redressed despite repeated requests. He was released from illegal detention only on 09.10.2002 after his wife wrote to the Commanding Officer and he was thereafter allowed to live in the barracks with other jawans.

10. The Tribunal noted the respondent's contention that on

04.12.2002, he had reported sick to the Unit Medical Officer, complaining of pain in his shoulder. On examination, the Medical Officer noticed several old, healed scars "(burnt? Wound?)" on his back. The respondent had complained earlier to the Commanding Officer about manhandling and when his grievance was not redressed, he wrote to the higher authorities on 26.11.2002, intimating them about his torture, manhandling and burn injuries. The complaint was forwarded by the Brigade Commander Commanding Officer for investigation, but the Commanding Officer never investigated the correctness of the allegations. The respondent was thereafter dismissed from service through a Summary Court Martial w.e.f. 06.04.2003.

11. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent was examined twice by two different medical officers on 04.12.2002 and on 21.12.2002. He has relied upon page 136 of the paper book, which contains a report of the Medical Inspection Room of 17 Kumaon Regiment. The respondent was sent there by the Board of Officers for medical inspection, as he had given a history of being beaten and burnt. On examination, it was found that there were no bruises, scars, wounds, or pain in the area complained of. However, three white (hypopigmented) patches were present on the lower back, along with hair loss. The surrounding skin was normal, with normal hair growth and sensation and there were no scratch marks, puckering or itching. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to page 138, which is part of the medical inspection report prepared by Capt. Dr. Maruti Gupta regarding hypopigmented patches on the back.

12. Reference was also made to page 139, containing another medical examination report by Capt. Dr. Varona Agarwal, wherein no 4 WRIA No. 13155 of 2025 abnormality was detected over the respondent's body except for two healed hypopigmented scars/marks on the lower lumbar region (back), each measuring 1 cm x 1.5 cm and two hypopigmented patches over both buttocks. There were no external signs of injury otherwise and no inflammation on the body.

13. This Court, having examined the two medical reports as referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is of the opinion that hypopigmentation, which means less pigmentation with hair loss on such patches on the back and buttocks and normal hair growth all around, could be because of burn injury which was healed. When the scab is removed or when a blister is healed, the skin underneath is new and because of burn injury, hair loss because of destruction of hair follicle underneath due to excessive heat is bound to occur. The light colour of the skin that was revealed after almost four months of the manhandling and burn injuries caused during the detention of the respondent speaks a lot about the treatment meted out to the respondent.

14. This Court, sitting in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, having gone through the two medical reports, finds no merit in this writ petition filed against the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal to warrant interference with the said order.

15. The writ petition stands dismissed. November 13, 2025 Ashish Dewal (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer :- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow in O.A. No.175 of 2019 contained as Annexure No.3 in interest of justice.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent was enrolled as a Sepoy in the Kumaon Regiment on 27.08.1996. On 19.12.2001, the Kumaon Regiment moved from Solan, Himachal Pradesh Khemkaran, Punjab for Operation Parakram. On 02.07.2002, the respondent was posted back at Solan, Himachal Pradesh with the rear party. He was assigned guard duty at the residential quarter of Major S.K. Anand.

4. On 04.08.2002, at around 8:00 p.m., the respondent reported to Naik Trilochan Dwivedi that a theft of Rs. 3,000/- had taken place in his room. When Naik Trilochan Dwivedi reached the spot and investigated the matter, the respondent changed his stand. He stated that he had gone outside for some work and, when he returned, he had found the doors of Major S.K. Anand's house open. Naik Trilochan Dwivedi found that nothing had been stolen from the respondent's room but that a theft had indeed taken place in Major S.K. Anand's house. 2 WRIA No. 13155 of 2025

5. Major S.K. Anand returned from the operational area and investigated the matter. He suspected that the respondent was involved in the theft. Police assistance had already been taken on

06.08.2002 and a police team had visited the site of the theft and also the room of the respondent and found certain objectionable items but nothing which would connect the respondent to the theft that took place in Major S.K. Anand’s house. The police team wanted to take the respondent into their custody, but Major S.K. Anand refused to hand over the respondent to police custody.

6. On 07.08.2002, the respondent was despatched to the operational area along with Major (now Colonel) D.D. Baloni. On 25.09.2002, the respondent wrote a letter to the Commander, 95 Infantry Brigade, with copies to the General Officer Commanding, 9 Infantry Division, 11 Corps, and the Chief of the Army Staff, alleging ill-treatment by Major S.K. Anand on the pretext of his suspected involvement in the theft case.

7. A Staff Court of Inquiry was ordered to investigate the allegations made by the respondent. It concluded that no manhandling or ill- treatment had been meted out by Major S.K. Anand to the respondent. It recommended initiation of disciplinary action against the respondent for making false allegations against his superior officer and for not adhering to the chain of command while reporting his grievance.

8. The respondent was dismissed from service w.e.f. 06.04.2003. He filed an appeal against the order of dismissal and against the order dated 19.10.2004 rejecting his representation by the appellate authority. His appeal was partly allowed by the Chief of Army Staff and his dismissal was converted into discharge from service. The respondent challenged both the dismissal and discharge orders in O.A. (A) No. 175 of 2019, which was allowed by the Armed Forces Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order.

9. The respondent stated before the higher authority that while in custody on the night of 05.08.2002, he was physically tortured and burnt on his back and hip at the instance of Major S.K. Anand. He further alleged that he was continuously kept in custody and was not 3 WRIA No. 13155 of 2025 allowed to talk to his family members. He made a complaint to the Commanding Officer through proper channel, but his grievance was not redressed despite repeated requests. He was released from illegal detention only on 09.10.2002 after his wife wrote to the Commanding Officer and he was thereafter allowed to live in the barracks with other jawans.

10. The Tribunal noted the respondent's contention that on

04.12.2002, he had reported sick to the Unit Medical Officer, complaining of pain in his shoulder. On examination, the Medical Officer noticed several old, healed scars "(burnt? Wound?)" on his back. The respondent had complained earlier to the Commanding Officer about manhandling and when his grievance was not redressed, he wrote to the higher authorities on 26.11.2002, intimating them about his torture, manhandling and burn injuries. The complaint was forwarded by the Brigade Commander Commanding Officer for investigation, but the Commanding Officer never investigated the correctness of the allegations. The respondent was thereafter dismissed from service through a Summary Court Martial w.e.f. 06.04.2003.

11. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent was examined twice by two different medical officers on 04.12.2002 and on 21.12.2002. He has relied upon page 136 of the paper book, which contains a report of the Medical Inspection Room of 17 Kumaon Regiment. The respondent was sent there by the Board of Officers for medical inspection, as he had given a history of being beaten and burnt. On examination, it was found that there were no bruises, scars, wounds, or pain in the area complained of. However, three white (hypopigmented) patches were present on the lower back, along with hair loss. The surrounding skin was normal, with normal hair growth and sensation and there were no scratch marks, puckering or itching. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to page 138, which is part of the medical inspection report prepared by Capt. Dr. Maruti Gupta regarding hypopigmented patches on the back.

12. Reference was also made to page 139, containing another medical examination report by Capt. Dr. Varona Agarwal, wherein no 4 WRIA No. 13155 of 2025 abnormality was detected over the respondent's body except for two healed hypopigmented scars/marks on the lower lumbar region (back), each measuring 1 cm x 1.5 cm and two hypopigmented patches over both buttocks. There were no external signs of injury otherwise and no inflammation on the body.

13. This Court, having examined the two medical reports as referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is of the opinion that hypopigmentation, which means less pigmentation with hair loss on such patches on the back and buttocks and normal hair growth all around, could be because of burn injury which was healed. When the scab is removed or when a blister is healed, the skin underneath is new and because of burn injury, hair loss because of destruction of hair follicle underneath due to excessive heat is bound to occur. The light colour of the skin that was revealed after almost four months of the manhandling and burn injuries caused during the detention of the respondent speaks a lot about the treatment meted out to the respondent.

14. This Court, sitting in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, having gone through the two medical reports, finds no merit in this writ petition filed against the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal to warrant interference with the said order.

15. The writ petition stands dismissed. November 13, 2025 Ashish Dewal (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench