UNION OF INDIA & ORS.VS. P.S. GILL., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.404 of 2013. – 27 November 2019.
The bench encompassing Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta pronounced judgment on the jurisdiction of Armed Forces Tribunal pertaining to quashing of its order dated 23.02.2010. The issue in this case began in the year 2005 when Twelve Army personnel prima facie responsible for the irregularities in procurement of ration were identified on a direction issued by the Chief of the Army Staff for investigation. Disciplinary action was initiated by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief (GOC-in-C) Western Command against Chief Director of Purchase (CDP), Army Purchase Organisation, Ministry of Defence since he was one of the Twelve Persons on whom the case was found. CDP, the respondent, challenged this by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi. By an order dated 11.01.2007, the High Court quashed the Court of Inquiry on the ground that Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954 was violated.In the meanwhile, the Respondent retired and Section 123 of the Army Act, 1950 was invoked by the Appellants to continue the proceedings against the Respondent.
There were six charges initiated against the respondent. First one was related to the addition of two more tendering stations namely Gadarwara and Narsingpur, Madhya Pradesh. The seconf was about the extension of the delivery period and the issue of final performance notice. The rest of the charges dealt with deviation from ASC specifications and price reduction in risk purchase contract. The Tribunal was of the opinion that that no monetary benefit was derived by the Respondent by adding two tendering stations, there was no foundation even to prima facie show the lapses on the part of the Respondent and the Tribunal found that no prima facie case was made out against the Respondent. Consequently, the charges were quashed.
Ms. Diksha Rai, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the Appellants. She argued that that the judgment of the Tribunal is vitiated due to a jurisdictional error. She stressed on sections 14 and 15 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. Mr. K. Ramesh, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the Respondent. He contended that section 14 of the Act provided powers to the Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction exercisable by all Courts except the Supreme Court or the High Courts. further submitted that according to Section 14 (2), any person aggrieved by an order pertaining to any service matter may make an application to the Tribunal.
We have no doubt in our mind that Section 14 of the Act which confers jurisdiction over service matters of the Army personnel should receive wide construction. This Court had held that an interpretation which confers jurisdiction should be preferred over an interpretation which takes away jurisdiction
This Hon’ble Court looked into the abovementioned sections along with it, it paid attention to section 3 of the Act which defines ‘service matters’. It came to a conclusion that since there was no finding by the Court Martial, an appeal under Section 15 per se is not maintainable. There was no dispute in this case concerning the ‘service matter’ and for this, the Court relied on the decision in Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain v. Eknath Ogale.
Thereby, the following was pronounced:
“We have no doubt in our mind that Section 14 of the Act which confers jurisdiction over service matters of the Army personnel should receive wide construction. The sequitur of the above discussion is that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction we do not find any error in the approach of the Tribunal. We do not see any reason to interfere with the said findings. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.”
In Mantri Technozone v. Forward Foundation, it was held that that an interpretation which confers jurisdiction should be preferred over an interpretation which takes away jurisdiction.
View/Download Judgment: Union of India & Ors. v. P.S.Gill
– Jumanah Kader
