Gunner Sat Pal v. Union of India and Another

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PtsADEEp NANTDRA|OGJ (Orat)

1. These 5 writ petitioners and many other officers of the, lndian Army were charged. by the Military,lntelligence for WP (C) No. 7018/2010, W.P.(c) No. 7039/2010, W.P.(c) No.7040/2010 W.P.(C) No.7o4L/2o10 & W.P.(c) No.7042l2010. Page | 2 (EA) espionage. lt was alleged that they gave secret informatioN/ the Pakistan Military pertaining to the Indian Army, which was a threat to the security of the Nation.

2. At a Couri Martial held in the ye.ar 1976, and others were charged and convicted for Section 69 of the Army Act read with Section Secrets Act. All were cashiered from service and to undergo imprisonment for various periods.

3. The petitioners filed writ.petitions before the High Court at Janrmu and Kashmir challenging the verdict of guilt pronounced by the General Court Martial. These writ petitions were filed in the year 1-978 and were dismissed on 7.4.1983. The. judgment attained finality inasmuch as no appeal was'filed against the judgment and order dated 7.4.1983.

4. Two officers - Mr. Ranbir Singh Rathaur and Mr. A.l(. Rana, who were held guilty by the General Court Martial filed writ petiti.ons in the. Delhi High Court, which were dismissed on 2.3,3.1982 and 4.6.1991 respectively. The 2 officers challenged the decision of the learned Single Judge by filing Letter Patent Appeals.

5. Some officers of the Indian Army, who were not subjected to a General Court Martial,. were dismissed from service in exercise of power vested in the cQmpetent authority under Section 18 of the Army Act. We may call this power as the administrative power to dismiss a person without a trial or an inq uiry.

6. Several of them filed writ petitions in this Court challenging WP (C) No. 7O1Bl2010, W.P.(c) No. 7039/2010, W.p.(C) No.7040/2010 W.P.(c) No.704112010 & W.P.(c) No.70a2l2010 Page | 3 the petitioners offence under 3 of the Official were sentenced G ti the administrative dismissals, which writ petitions were with the Letter Patent Appeals filed by Mr. Ranbir Singh and'Mr. A.K. Rana. Rathaur 7, In the year 1994, one.co-accused Sarwan Dass filed an affidavit stating that Mr. Ranbir Singh Rathaur and Mr. A,K. Rana were wiongly accused. ln the said year the Full Bench of this Court gave an opinion pertaining to the scope of judicial review with respect to the scope of judicial intervention against orders of administrative dismissal under Section.18 of the Army Act.

9. The writ petitions filed by the persons against whom administrative dismissal was effected as also the Letter Patent, Appeals filed by Mr.Ranbir Singh Rathau.r and Mr.A.l(. Rana as also the two subsequent writ petitions filed by them were allowed on 2I.12.2000 and the proceedings at the General Court Martial were set aside. 10; Union of India challenged the judgment and 2LI[2].2000, by seeking leave to appeal before the WP (C) No. 7018/2010, W.P.(C) No. 7039/2010, W.p.(C) No. 7O4Ol2010 W.P.(c) No.704t/2010 & W.p.(c) No.7o4zlzoto order of Supreme t Court. Leave was granted. Civil Appeal No.2949-57 | pending before the Supreme Court. Operation of the and order dated 21.12.2000 has been stayed.

JUDGMENT

11. The petitioners thereafter filed writ'petitions in this Couft in the.year 2001 praying that they'were entitled to the same relief as was granted to Mr,Ranbir S'ingh Rathaur and Mr.A.K. Rana. These writ petitions were adjourned sine die and upon the constitution of the Armed F'orces Tribunal were transferred to the Tribunal for adjudication.

12. On 22.3.2006, the Supreme Court de-linked such appeals which pertained to writ petitions filed by those who had suffered an administrative dismissal and as regard the judgment allowing W.P.(C) No.40B2l95 and W.P.(C) No.3063 |rgg[5], for the reason Mr.Ranbir Singh Rathaur and Mr.A.K. Rana had earlier litigated and lost the battle, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to this Court to decide whether the subsequent writ petitions were maintainable or were barred by res-judicata.

13. on remand, this High court dismissed the 2 writ petitions vide judgment and order dated 20.L[2].2a07 holding the said writ petitions to be barred by res-judicata and hence not maintainable.

14. The 2 have preferred petition for seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order of 20.r[2].2007 and the petitions for special leave to appeal are still pending and stated to be listed before the Supreme Court on 1,8.2011.

15. The reasoning of the Armed Forces Tribunal to dismiss the second round of litigation initiated by the writ petitioners is the WP (c) No.701812010, W.P.(c) No.7039/2010, W.p.(c) No.704012010 W.P.(c) No.7o4Ll20L0 & W.P.(c) No.7O42/2Ora Page i 5 -? f same as the reasoning of the Division Bench of this Cou per order dated 20.12.2007. lt has been held that the bar of resjuclicata makes not maintainable the writ petitions.