Q: Describe the relevancy of citation of S. Muthu Kumaran v. Union Of India And Others Supreme Court Of India, January 17, 2017 with present case ?

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. The Tribunal took note of the entire facts and circumstances, more specifically, the retracted confessional statement of the appellant and vide its order dated 06.05.2016, dismissed the appellant’s application as being devoid of any merit. The Miscellaneous Application (M.A. No.320 of 2016 in O.A. No.96 of 2011) filed by the appellant seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 31 of the Act was also dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2016. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant approached this forum by filing an appeal under Section 30 of the AFT Act.

The honourable Supreme Court held that dismissal order passed against the Appellant was within the powers of the concerned authorities. However, as far as the dismissal from service is concerned, it is an extreme punishment imposed against the Appellant. The Appellant has to thrive in civil life by doing an appropriate job suitable to his qualification. The punishment of dismissal was modified from service into discharge from service. Thus, considering the principles of natural justice,  the honourable Supreme Court subsided the harsh punishment. 

Relevancy with our case: 

In our case,  the BSF personnel fired in bushes in thrilling sensation of patriotism. Such excitement frequently happens in youngsters and had not committed any crime like involving in fraudulent recruitment racket. Thus, he must be reinstated considering the principles of natural justice.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Describe the citation of Chandra Kumar v. Union of India in brief ?

Ans: The larger issue before the Bench was whether the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal set up under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 would be amenable to challenge before High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It will be noted that when the concept of tribunalisation was upheld in L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India  that the Court had unequivocally opined that the orders passed by the Tribunals would be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of Indian Constitution.  x
Read more

Q: Describe the citation of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India ?

Ans: Learned counsels fortified their arguments on the basis of observations in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India ,  more specifically in paragraph 42, where the Supreme Court held that the High Courts, under Article 226, have the power of judicial review even in respect of courts martial and the High Courts can grant appropriate relief if the said proceedings have resulted in denial of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or if the said proceedings suffer from a jurisdictional error or any error of law apparent on the face of the record. x
Read more

Q: Elaborate the relevancy of citation of Ranjit Thakur v. Union Of India And Others ,Supreme Court Of India, Oct 15, 1987 with present case ?

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...
Read more