OA 350/2012 with MA 550/2012. Case: Sep Kirti Nidhi Singh Bisht Vs Union of India & Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | OA 350/2012 with MA 550/2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. K.K. Rohtagi, Advocate and Mr. Gopal Singh Proxy for Mr. Sarvesh Singh, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. S.P. Sharma, Advocate |
| Judges | A.K. Mathur, J. (Chairperson) Lt. Gen. M.L. Naidu, Member |
| Issue | Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 - Sections 20(3), 21, 22 |
| Judgement Date | April 09, 2013 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Order:
(Principal Bench At New Delhi)
-
The petitioner has prayed that the order dated 30.01.2009 and 15.03.2003 may be quashed and petitioner may be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The petitioner was inducted in the Indian Army as Sepoy on 15.11.1997 and it is alleged he was suffering from Tuberculosis in 1999. He was given a show-cause notice for discharge from service on account of four Red Ink Entries on 04.02.2003. He refused to accept the same as it is said that it was in English so he did not accept. As such no reply was filed by him. A further extended time was given to him to file the reply but he did not avail the same and ultimately discharge order was passed dated 15.03.2003 by the respondent to be effective from 31.03.2003. It is alleged that the petitioner made a representation against his discharge order on 07.03.2004 against his discharge. Thereafter, he filed an appeal the under the Army Act on 28.08.2004. Then on 29.08.2007, an acknowledgment was issued against a notice sent by the petitioner in March 2007 to the Hon'ble Defence Minister and he was informed that a reply will be sent to him. On 17.09.2007, he received an acknowledgement. On 08.12.2007, he solicited an appropriate action and in August 2011 he sought information through RTI. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is prosecuting his remedy from 2004 onwards and as such the delay in approaching the court may be condoned. A reply has been filed by the respondents. Respondents in their reply have pointed out that repeated representations and correspondence would not enhance the period of limitation and they have submitted that Section 21 read with Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 that 'Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application which is barred by time' and it is also pointed out that he earned four Red Ink Entries which reads as under:
and on account of his Red Ink Entries a show-cause notice was given to him and he was asked to reply to show-cause notice and he refused to accept that show cause notice. Therefore, his reply was further extended by 04.03.2003 by the Commander 95 Infantry Brigade but he did not file any reply and therefore finally the order was passed on 15.03.2003. He was discharged from service as an undesirable soldier by exercising the powers vested under the authority of Arms Act, Section 20(3) in the interest of State and to maintain discipline in the service. On 31.03.2003, when...
To continue reading
Request your trial