Q: Elaborate the citation of Avimanyu Panda V. Union of India?

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 petition is permitted and the order of dismissal date 21.8.1995 and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 12.1.1996 are set aside.

 The petitioner shall be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

There shall be no orders as to costs.


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