MA 667 of 2012 and RA 22 of 2012 in OA 1182 of 2011. Case: Amit Kumar Roy Vs Union of India and others. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | MA 667 of 2012 and RA 22 of 2012 in OA 1182 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate and For Respondents: Mrs. Geeta Singhwal, Sr. P.C. |
| Judges | Justice N.P. Gupta, Judicial Member and Lt. Gen. (Retd.) N.S. Brar, Administrative Member |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | May 25, 2012 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Order:
(Regional Bench At Chandimandir)
-
Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner on the review application. The only submission was made that the petitioner should be and should have been allowed to amend the OA, which has been dismissed as infructuous, more particularly, because the order passed on 26th March, 2012, was placed on record by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, and not by the respondents.
-
It was pointedly put to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner as to how not permitting to amend the OA furnishes him any ground to seek review of the judgment dated 11.04.2012. For that, it was submitted that since the order was passed during pendency of the petition and the petition has been dismissed as infructuous, and the respondents did not even place the copy of that order on record, it was a fit case wherein the petitioner should have been allowed to amend the petition. It was also submitted that in similar circumstances, other persons having been granted discharge, there was no occasion for refusing discharge to the petitioner more so when, by now, he has already rendered 8 to 9 months service with the bank.
-
A look at the review petition shows, that one of the grounds taken in para 11 is about this Court having not followed the decision rendered by the Lucknow Bench in Subhash Bishnoi's case, nor having referred the matter to the Larger Bench for adjudication. Rather, even this plea was not noted in the order. Of course, this submission was not made today. However, looking to the way the review petition has been framed, we feel constrained to observe that the judgment in Subhash Bishnoi's case has been duly taken note of at page 14 of the judgment, and thereafter, after dealing with all other cases cited by the leaned counsel, at page 17 the principle of stare decisis, and the aspects of law of precedents was also considered, and the conclusions were arrived at.
-
So far as the other persons having been discharged, and the petitioner having been denied, aspect is concerned, that has already been adequately dealt with in the judgment dated 11.4.2012, giving clear and categoric reasons, after appreciating the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner in that regard, on the anvil of various judgments cited by him.
-
So far as the amendment is concerned, firstly, after the OA has been decided there is no occasion for permitting the petitioner to amend the OA. Secondly, since the petitioner means to have...
To continue reading
Request your trial