Case laws

Ans:  S.R. TEWARI V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER The appellant, an IPS officer of 1982 batch joined the service on 1-9-1982, promoted on the post of Deputy Inspector General (DIG), and subsequently as Inspector General of Police (IG) in his cadre of the State of Andhra Pradesh in May 2001. The appellant was on deputation and was posted as IG, Frontier Headquarters, Border Security Force (BSF) (North Bengal) from 23-6-2005 to 14-11-2006.  The appellant was put under suspension vide order dated 13-11-2006 as the disciplinary authority decided to hold disciplinary proceedings. As a consequence thereof, a charge-sheet dated 23-3-2007 containing eight charges was served upon him. The appellant denied all the said charges and therefore, an inquiry officer was appointed. The Department examined a large number of witnesses and produced documents in support of its case. The appellant also defended himself and the inquiry officer submitted the report dated 23-12-2008 holding him guilty, ...

Ans: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. GIRIRAJ SHARMA  The respondent who was deputed to undergo a course as an electrician sought leave for 10 days on 10-12-1982, which was granted. While he was on leave he sent a telegram for extension of leave by 12 days which request came to be rejected. The respondent, however, joined duty on 22-12-1982 thereby overstaying the period of leave by 12 days (sic 2 days). For this misdemeanour his services came to be terminated by an order dated 7-5-1983. His departmental appeal as well as revision were also rejected, whereupon he filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of termination which writ petition came to be allowed by the order of 3-1-1989. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated with all monetary and other service benefits. It is against this order that the present appeal is preferred. The honourable Supreme Court held that we are of the opinion that so far as the present case is concerned the allegation is in re...

Ans: Ranjit Thakur v. Union Of India And Others ,Supreme Court Of India, Oct 15, 1987 Appellant, Ranjit Thakur, joined the Armed Services on September 7, 1972, and was, at the relevant time, a Signalman in “4 Corps Operating Signal Regiment”. Apparently, appellant had not commended himself well to Respondent 4, who was the commanding officer of the regiment. On March 29, 1985, appellant was already serving out a sentence of 28 days' rigorous imprisonment imposed on him for violating the norms for presenting representations to higher officers. Appellant is stated to have sent representation complaining ill-treatment at the hands of Respondent 4 directly to the higher officers. Appellant was punished for that by Respondent 4. Army Act Section 41(2) Disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer In that he at 15.30 hrs. on May 29, 1985 when ordered by JC 106251-P Sub Ram Singh, the Orderly Officer of the same Regiment to eat his food, did not do so. To try this offence a su...

Ans:  Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya vs Commissioner Of Police Delhi & Ors on 16 March, 2004. The appellant was recruited as a Constable in Delhi Police. While undergoing the prescribed training, the appellant fell down on the parade ground on 07.10.1994. Thereupon, he was sent to police dispensary as ordered by the Chief Drill Inspector of the parade. Since his condition did not improve, his relative took him to his home town in Gwalior. He remained under treatment of Government Doctors there and sent applications for leave on medical grounds supported with the medical certificates from competent medical authorities in accordance with the leave rules. The competent police authority passed an order on 16.1.1995 sanctioning leave without pay for the period of his illness from 7.10.1994 to 14.12.1994 as no other leave was due to him. According to the appellant since the competent authority had granted the leave, the question of issuing any charge sheet subsequently for unauthorised absenc...

Ans:  B.S. Hari Commandant vs Union Of India on 13 April, 2023 The Supreme Court on Thursday(April 13) set aside the judgement and the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which upheld the conviction of an Ex-Commandant of BSF under various provisions of BSF Act and NDPS Act, on the ground that there was no direct and cogent evidence against him. The division bench of Justice Krishna Murari as well as Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah noted that in the absence of direct and cogent evidence against the appellant, even if the GSFC was convinced of the appellant’s guilt, the punishment handed out was too harsh, paying heed that the appellant would, even then, be a first-time delinquent, and not a habitual offender. Arguendo, that there be some resemblance of truth in the allegations, the punishment meted out, in our considered view, was disproportionate.” Thus, the honourable Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court as well as t...

Ans:  Ex. Gnr Laxmanram Poonia (Dead) vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 2017. The Appellant was enrolled in the Indian Army. It was the case of the Appellant that on the eve of Festival, he was overburdened with work due to scarcity of staff. Due to continuous restless duty hours for several days, he suffered hypertension resulting in lack of sleep and hunger. Ultimately, he requested the Commanding Officer of his Unit to sanction him leave considering his critical condition. However, instead of granting leave, the Commanding Officer got him admitted in 174 Military Hospital on 11.11.2007, acknowledging the critical condition of the Appellant. The Doctor diagnosed the Appellant to be suffering from acute schizophrenia like psychotic disorder. The Appellant was discharged from 174 Military Hospital on 14.03.2008. Thereafter, he was shifted to Military Hospital Chandimandir and was admitted to psychiatric ward on 28.08.2008. He was subjected to a Military Board held at 174 ...

Ans:  S. Muthu Kumaran v. Union Of India And Others Supreme Court Of India, January 17, 2017. In the above citation , the appellant was alleged of fraudulent recruitment racket but he denied and obtained illegal gratification in lieu of same.  The Appellant was served with a show cause notice alongwith a copy of his confessional statement. The Appellant denied the allegations made against him in the show cause notice and submitted it to the concerned authority. The services of the Appellant was terminated. Challenging the termination order, the Appellant filed an application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 before the Tribunal. Even when the matter was pending before the Tribunal, the Appellant filed petition before the High Court. The High Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the Appellant to file representation before the concerned authority. However, the Appellant did not prefer any representation before the concerned authority thereof....

Ans:  Union Of India vs Major R. Metri No. Mr 08585N on 4 April, 2022 The honourable Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment and order dated 2nd March, 2017, passed by the learned AFT, convicting the appellant Major R. Metri No.08585N for the offence punishable under Section 63 of the Army Act and sentencing him to forfeiture of seniority of rank and of severe reprimand is quashed and set aside. The appellantMajor R. Metri No.08585N is acquitted of all the charges, charged with. The appellantMajor R. Metri No.08585N is directed to be reinstated forthwith with continuity of service. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant Major R. Metri No.08585N will not be entitled for backwages for the period during which he was out of employment. Relevancy with our case: In the above case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Major R. Metri, the honourable Supreme Court set aside the dismissal of Major R. Metri considering the principles of natural justice and order f...

Ans: Col Anil Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India Ministry Of Defence on 7 November, 2022  The honourable Supreme Court hasten to add that as per the well settled legal position 1, the power of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceedings is extremely limited. It is circumscribed by the limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. The power of judicial review is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not of the merits of the decision itself. It is therefore clarified that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant pursuant to the chargesheet issued on 19.11.2018 shall continue in accordance with law. Relevancy with our case: The honourable Supreme Court has accepted that there was the violation of principles of natural justice due to the binding rules of law which should not happen in the above case of  Col Anil Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India Ministry Of D...

Ans:  Chief Of The Army Staff And Others vs Major Dharam Pal Kukrety on 21 March, 1985 The honourable Supreme Court held that before parting with this Appeal, we would like to observe that the alleged incidents in respect of which the Respondent was tried before the general court-martial took place nearly ten years ago. We, therefore, feel that the Chief of the Army Staff should take into account the conduct as well as behaviour of the Respondent during the intervening period and if they have been in conformity with good order and military discipline and the high traditions of the Indian Army, he may consider the desirability of proceeding further in the matter. The order of high court was set aside by honourable Supreme Court.  In our case also, the bsf personnel fired in bushes owing to excitement having the spirit of patriotism. So, considering the spirit of patriotism , his conduct of indiscipline can be ignored with warning or admonishment and he must also be reinstated. ...

Ans:  Sqn.Ldr. (Retd). Navtej Singh vs Union Of India . on 5 December, 2018. Appellant after completing training from Air Force Academy, Hyderabad, was granted commission in rank of Pilot Officer in branch of Flying Navigation of Indian Air Force with effect from 16th December, 1995. Thereafter, he received promotions in due course of time and was finally promoted to rank of Squadron Leader. Sometime in year 2001, Appellant was diagnosed of Dysmia and Alcohol Dependence Syndrome and Primary Hypothyroidism and since n was put in low medical category. A Medical Board was constituted to consider his medical condition and Medical Board found him to be unfit for all flying duties. Appellant was given option of being transferred to Administrative Branch but expressed his unwillingness. In circumstances, Invaliding Medical Board was constituted to consider case which declared that, Appellant be invalidated out of service on medical grounds. Aforesaid recommendation of Invaliding Medical B...

Ans:  N.N. Godfred . vs Union Of India And Ors on 11 July, 2018. The Appellant No. 3 made a representation to the Bureau of Sailors- Respondent No. 3 for a clarification whether Submarine was included for computing the pension payable. Respondent No. 3 rejected the representation stating that Submariners and Aviation Sailors were categorized under the group Other than A, which is lower than Group A, and that the pensionary benefits granted were in order. Armed Forces Tribunal held that submarine pay/allowance could not be counted for purpose of determining pension. The honourable Supreme Court held while allowing the appeal: (i) Navy Instruction did not exclude Submarine Pay from the computation of pay for the purpose of calculating Service Pension. It would be instructive to refer to the entries with respect to Aviation Sailors. Navy Instruction specifically excluded Flying Pay from being treated as pay for the computation of pension and gratuity. The submission of the Respondents...

Ans:  S. Muthu Kumaran v. Union Of India And Others Supreme Court Of India, January 17, 2017. The Appellant was alleged to have been involved in fraudulent recruitment racket and obtaining illegal gratification in lieu of the same. The Appellant was served with a show cause notice alongwith a copy of his confessional statement. The Appellant denied the allegations made against him in the show cause notice and submitted that the concerned authority had already held an inquiry in this regard and after recording the evidence had concluded that no charges are proved against the Appellant. The Appellant was served with a subsequent show cause notice asking him to submit additional reply, if any. The Appellant submitted additional reply, stating that he was forced to give self incriminating confessional statement which deserves to be discarded on account of being false and made under coercion. The officiating officer had opined in favour of dropping the proceedings against the Appellant....

Ans: Ex. Gnr Laxmanram Poonia (Dead) vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 2017. The Appellant was enrolled in the Indian Army. It was the case of the Appellant that on the eve of Festival, he was overburdened with work due to scarcity of staff. Due to continuous restless duty hours for several days, he suffered hypertension resulting in lack of sleep and hunger. Ultimately, he requested the Commanding Officer of his Unit to sanction him leave considering his critical condition. However, instead of granting leave, the Commanding Officer got him admitted in 174 Military Hospital on 11.11.2007, acknowledging the critical condition of the Appellant. The Doctor diagnosed the Appellant to be suffering from acute schizophrenia like psychotic disorder. The Appellant was discharged from 174 Military Hospital on 14.03.2008. Thereafter, he was shifted to Military Hospital Chandimandir and was admitted to psychiatric ward on 28.08.2008. He was subjected to a Military Board held at 174 Milit...

Ans: In the present case , the honourable Supreme Court did not find that there has been a consideration of all the relevant facts and the learned Single Judge has not recorded reasons in order to modify the punishment imposed. The Division Bench of the High Court also did not examine the matter in proper perspective b ut simply concurred with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Normally in cases where it is found that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, high courts or tribunals may remit the cases to the disciplinary authority for reconsider ation on the quantum of punishment. In this case the disciplinary proceedings were initiated in the year 1989 and to shorten the litigation we think it appropriate  to set aside the impugned order and remit the writ appeal No. 952 of 1998 to the Division Be nch of the High Court to reconsider the case only on the quantum of punishment imposed on the respondent having regard to all relevant factors including th...

Ans:  Sukhvinder Singh v. Union Of India And Others Supreme Court Of India Jun 25, 2014 According to the Appellant, on 5.8.2001 he was slapped on the ear by the Instructor in the Training Centre as a consequence of which he suffered shooting pain in that ear and was admitted to the Military Hospital, Kamptee. We have perused the Report of the Medical Officer (ENT), dated 5.8.2001 which has been filed with the Appeal as Annexure P-1. It contains a noting to the effect that the Appellant had stated that he was hit on the ear by a fellow patient in the ward. The diagnosis was that there was "Substandard hearing RT ear (old) c Tr perforation LT TM." It seems to us that the discrepancy in the noting as to the manner in which the injury was sustained was because it was inconceivable for a young recruit to lodge a complaint against his Instructor. Such a complaint would have had serious implications and an Inquiry under Regulation 520 of the Regulations of the Army, 1987 would have ...

Ans:  Ex.Sepoy (Washerman) Ram Khilawan vs Union Of India on 2 September, 2019. The Appellant was enrolled in the Army as a Washerman on October 23, 1987. He was discharged from service on medical grounds on August 31, 1993 due to "CNS (IN) Seizure" when he was put in Low Medical Category BEE. Appellant, aggrieved against the discharge, submitted statutory complaint wherein, the stand of the Appellant was that no show-cause notice was given to him by the Commanding Officer who sanctioned discharge under Rule 13(3) Item III (v) of the Army Rules, 1954. Such statutory complaint was declined on October 12, 2007, on the ground that, though the Appellant has given his option to serve in the sheltered appointment but no sheltered appointment was available commensurate with the trade to suitably employ in the public interest. Therefore, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Order 46 of 1980 read with Rule 13(3) Item III(v) of the Rules. The Appellant filed writ petition bef...

Ans:  Supreme Court of India Veerenndra Kumar Dubey vs Chief Of Army Staff & Ors on 16 October, 2015. The appellant was enrolled as an Operator in the corps of Artillery of Indian Army on 27th September, 1980. Having served in that capacity for nearly 12 years, he received a show cause notice pointing out that he had been awarded four red ink entries for various offences set out in the notice and that the appellant had become a habitual offender thereby setting a bad example of indiscipline in the army. The notice, on that premise, called upon the appellant to show cause as to why he should not be discharged from service under Army Rule 13(III)(v) read with Army HQ letter No.A/15010/150/AG/PS-2(c) dated 28th December, 1988. The appellant submitted a reply to the show cause notice which does not appear to have cut any ice with the competent authority resulting in his discharge by an order dated 14th December, 1992. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before respondent N...

Ans: The complainant  failed to state clearly the date and time of the friendly loan or any documentary evidence of such friendly loan having been advanced to the accused. The High Court of Jharkhand stated when the complainant failed to state clearly the date and time of friendly loan or documentary evidence of such friendly loan or documentary evidence of such friendly loan having been advanced to the accused , the acquittal of accused warrants no interference.

Ans: Rathin Ghosh Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. and Ors., 2019 The charges which were held to be proved were not any such charges on which punishment of dismissal could have been imposed. The Supreme Court held that awarding punishment of dismissal of the appellant is disproportionate and deserves to be set aside. As recorded in the order dated 09.10.2018, the Supreme Court has proposed that the resignation letter be treated as a voluntary retirement and the appellant be entitled to all benefits accruing to him on retirement as on that date. The Supreme Court is of the view that the ends of justice be served in allowing this appeal setting aside the dismissal order by directing that resignation letter of the appellant dated 13.05.2008 be treated as voluntary retirement with further direction to treat the appellant as voluntarily retired on that date and to compute all benefits accruing to the appellant including gratuity and pension as admissible on that d...

Ans: Sushil Kumar Tipathi Vs. Jagadguru Ram Bhadracharya Handicapped University and Ors., 2021 On 19th July, 2006, the Registrar of the University replied that since his post was only for the Tenth Plan which was going to expire on 31st March, 2007, his services would be automatically terminated on the said date i.e.31st March, 2007. The appellant received another communication, dated 1st March, 2007, from the Registrar of the University stating that his services were no more required by the University with effect from 31st March, 2007, as his post was abolished.  This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 8th February,2008, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 20470 of 2007, by which the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed. In view of the facts, the honourable Supreme Court find that the termination of the services of the appellant was illegal and not in accordance with l...

Ans: The appellant filed the writ-petition in the High Court which was also dismissed. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred this Special Leave Petition/Appeal. Thus, the present one is a case wherein the Supreme Court is satisfied that the punishment of removal from service imposed on the appellant is not only highly excessive and disproportionate but is also one which was not permissible to be imposed as per the Service Rules. Ordinarily we would have set aside the punishment and sent the matter back to the disciplinary authority for passing the order of punishment afresh in accordance with law and consistently with the principles laid down in the judgment. However, that would further lengthen the life of litigation. In view of the time already lost, we deem it proper to set aside the punishment of removal from service and instead direct the appellant to be reinstated in service subject to the condition that the period during which the appellant remained absent from duty and the p...

Ans: R.Mahalingam vs Chairman,Tnpsc & Anr on 20 February, 2013 This appeal is directed against judgment dated 3.2.2010 of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court whereby the writ appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge negating his challenge to the order of punishment was upheld. The appeal is allowed by honourable Supreme Court and the order of punishment passed by the Secretary of the Commission and the appellate order passed by the Chairman of the Commission are quashed and it is declared that the appellant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary for the period during which he was kept out of employment. He shall also be entitled to the retiral benefits, which may be admissible to him under the relevant service rules. The concerned authority of the Commission is directed to pay the salary, allowances, etc., to the appellant within 4 months from the date of production of copy of this ...

Ans: The Supreme Court in case of Union Of India vs Lt.Gen S.K. Sahni on 23 March, 2022 set aside the conviction and dismissal from service of Lt Gen S.K. Sahni (retd), who was Indian Army’s Director General, Supplies and Transport, in an alleged ration scam. A bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai said that the honourable Supreme court therefore, find that the orders passed by the learned AFT (Armed Forces Tribunal) as well as the GCM (General Court Martial) are not sustainable in law. The appeal of the appellants (Union of India and others) deserves to be dismissed. Justice Gavai, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said "The petitioner (Sahni) is acquitted of all the charges leveled against him; and the petitioner would be entitled to all pensionary and consequential benefits in accordance with law. The arrears of such benefits shall be computed and paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.”

Ans:  Delhi High Court   Avimanyu Panda (Ex. Sgt.) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 4 January, 1999   Equivalent citations: 1999 IAD Delhi 654, 78 (1999) DLT 47, 1999 (48) DRJ 622   Bench: K Ramamoorthy The Delhi high court held that it is quite ununderstandable as to how when the respondents, dealing with the matter administratively, could take a decision that if court martial is held, that would embarrass the complainant and, therefore, the petitioner should be removed from service. In our democratic polity, any decision could be taken only in accordance with law. Taking a final decision and issuing showcause notice is an arbitrary exercise of power and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The view taken by the respondents is a view which would not be taken by a person properly instructed in law. The respondents had completely accepted case of the complainant without any basis and that is wholly illegal. Accordingly, the writ ...

Ans:  HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on:   24.02.2023 Pronounced on: 16.03.2023 Sunil Kumar                         No. 13 /20 2 0 ...Appellant(s)   Through:- Mr. Muzaffar Ali Shah, Advocate   V/s Union of India and others               ...Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Sandeep Gupta, CGSC In a significant Judgment, a Division Bench of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Puneet Gupta has allowed an appeal filed by Sunil Kumar-a BSF Constable, who had been dismissed from service on May 5, 2001 and whose writ petition was also dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court of J&K vide it’s Judgment dated November 2, 2019. While allowing appeal, the Division Bench quashed the order of...

Ans:  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT                                                DATED: 18.01.2019                                                       CORAM:     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN                                              ...

  Ans:  Delhi High Court Sees Ram vs Union Of India on 1 September, 1996   Equivalent citations: 63 (1996) DLT 890, 1996 (38) DRJ 663 Author: D Gupta Bench: D Gupta, M Siddiqui The petitioner has sought the quashing of order of dismissal from service dated 6.3.1991 passed by the Commandant, 67 Bn., Border Security Force in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11(2) of (he Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') along with all consequential reliefs. Resultantly, the writ petition is permitted and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join his duty forthwith with all consequential benefits as regards his pay and continuity of service. Arrears of pay etc., if any, will be worked and paid within a period of six weeks from today.

Ans: According to the citation of Union of India vs R. Kartik,  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 831 OF 2015, the honourable Supreme Court held that  the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai are subject matter of challenge by the Union of India vide the said orders, the verdict dated 24th July, 2013 of Summary Trial for dismissing the respondent1 from service was partly modified by setting aside the order of dismissal but substituting it with punishment of 75 days detention as well as maintaining second part of sentence i.e. deprivation of First Good Conduct Badge. However, it is directed that the respondent shall be reinstated within two months but shall not be entitled to any back wages from the date of dismissal till reinstatement but he shall be entitled to computation of all consequential advantages comprising pay fixation. x

Ans:  B.S. Hari Commandant v. Union of India and Ors The Supreme Court on Thursday(April 13) set aside the judgement and the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which upheld the conviction of an Ex-Commandant of BSF under various provisions of BSF Act and NDPS Act, on the ground that there was no direct and cogent evidence against him. The division bench of Justice Krishna Murari as well as Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah noted that in the absence of direct and cogent evidence against the appellant, even if the GSFC was convinced of the appellant’s guilt, the punishment handed out was too harsh, paying heed that the appellant would, even then, be a first-time delinquent, and not a habitual offender. Arguendo, that there be some resemblance of truth in the allegations, the punishment meted out, in our considered view, was disproportionate.” Thus, the honourable Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court as well as the convict...

Ans:  Section 31 of  Armed Forces Tribunal Act,  2007 mentions about leave to appeal. According to this section,   (1) An appeal to the Supreme Court shall lie with the leave of the Tribunal , and such leave shall not be granted unless it is certified by the Tribunal that a point of law of general public importance is involved in the decision, or it appears to the Supreme Court that the point is one which ought to be considered by that Court. (2) An application to the Tribunal for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court shall be made within a period of thirty days beginning with the date of the decision of the Tribunal as well as an application to the Supreme Court for leave shall be made within a period of thirty days beginning with the date on which the application for leave is repudiated by the Tribunal. (3) An appeal shall be treated as pending until any application for leave to appeal is disposed of and if leave to appeal is granted, until the appeal is dispos...

Ans: Section 30 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007:   Appeal to the Supreme Court . - (1) Subject to the provisions of section 31, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court against the final decision or order of the Tribunal (other than an order passed under section 19) provided that such appeal is preferred within a period of ninety days of the said decision or order and provided further that there shall be no appeal against an interlocutory order of the Tribunal. (2) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court as of right from any order or decision of the Tribunal in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt provided that an appeal under this sub-section shall be filed in the Supreme Court within sixty days from the date of the order appealed against. (3) Pending any appeal under sub-section (2), the Supreme Court may order that— (a) the execution of the punishment or the order appealed against be suspended; or (b) if the appellant is in confinement, he can be released ...