Deepak Kumar v. Union of India

1. The petitioners, in these writ petitions, were the applicants before the Armed Forces Tribunal[1] in OA 1365/2024[2], OA 1328/2024[3], OA 1349/2024[4] and OA 2823/2024[5], whereby they challenged the orders passed by the respondents dismissing them from service under Section 20(3) of the Air Force Act, 1950 read with Rule 18 of the Air Force Rules, 1969. They also moved applications, with the OAs, seeking interim injunction.

2. The AFT has, by a common order dated 6 December 2024, dismissed the applications seeking interim relief. “the AFT”, hereinafter Ex. Cpl Deepak Kumar v UOI Ex. Cpl Jitendra Singh v UOI Ex. Cpl V V Sudheer v UOI Ex. Cpl Saurabh Verma v UOI

3. Thereafter, the petitioners filed applications seeking early hearing of their OAs, which also stand dismissed by the AFT by individual orders passed in each case.

4. These writ petitions assail the common order dated 6 December 2024, whereby the petitioners’ prayer for interim relief has been rejected, as well as the orders by which their prayer for early hearing of their OAs have been dismissed.

5. We have heard Mr. Durgesh Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sahaj Garg, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents in WP (C) 3930/2025, Mr. Syed Haseeb, learned CGSC appearing for the respondents in WP (C) 4089/2025, Ms. Suruchi Mittal, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents in WP (C) 4091/2025 and Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents in WP (C) 4097/2025.

6. We find no reason to interfere with either of the orders under challenge in these writ petitions.

7. Insofar as the challenge to the rejection of the petitioners’ prayer for interim relief is concerned, this Court is not exercising appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the AFT. Our jurisdiction partakes of the character of certiorari. In exercise of such jurisdiction, we ordinarily loath to interfere with the interim orders passed by the AFT, which are fundamentally discretionary in nature.

8. Secondly, the orders under challenge are orders of dismissal from service. Classically, there can no interim stay of an order dismissing an employee from service, as it would amount to restoring the status quo ante at an interim state, which cannot be granted.

9. Needless to say, should the petitioners succeed in their OAs, appropriate reliefs would be available to them.

10. Thirdly, we may reproduce the reasoning of the AFT in paras 10 to 13 of the order dated 6 December 2024, thus:

comparing the case of one misconduct with another parity cannot be drawn. The issue has to be scrutinized, analysed and thereafter a decision is taken. There are serious allegations against the applicant. A man in uniform is a member of the disciplined force and is not expected to indulge in such business activities, accordingly, taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to grant any interim relief to the applicant for the simple reason that the three conditions necessary for grant of injunction, i.e., existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss do not exist together m favour of the applicant.

12. Prima facie, the facts of the present case are not in favour of the applicant for the simple reason that in the Col, the allegation against the applicant with regard to the act of participating in private business stands proved. Balance of convenience is also not in favour of the applicant because the Air Force is a sensitive establishment involved in national security and, therefore, keeping such a person in service who indulges in private business and even visits foreign countries in connection with the trade unauthorizedly cannot be kept in service and, therefore, balance of convenience is not in favour of the applicant. Finally, as far as irreparable loss is concerned, there is no irreparable loss to the applicant for the reason that ultimately after hearing the matter, we find that the dismissal of the applicant is not warranted, the dismissal can be set aside and the applicant compensated by grant of back wages and all other service benefits. That being so, finding no case made out for granting any interim relief, MA No.5266/2024 stan4s rejected. Resultantly, MA No.1642/2024 filed initially by the applicant seeking the interim relief also stands dismissed.”

11. It is in view of the aforesaid prima facie observations that the AFT has found that the case did not merit grant of any interim protection.

12. The order is purely discretionary in nature, based on a prima facie appreciation of the merits of the matter. There is obviously no jurisdictional error or any other infirmity in the reasoning of the AFT as would merit interference by us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.