Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ex. Naik Arjun Singh Yadav vs Chief Of The Army Staff & Others on 11 March, 2010
Crl. Writ Petition No. 1502 of 1999
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Writ Petition No. 1502 of 1999
Date of Decision: 11.03.2010
Ex. Naik Arjun Singh Yadav
... Petitioner
Vs.
Chief of the Army Staff & others
.......... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma
PRESENT: Mr. Arun Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Sr. Panel Counsel and
Ms. Meenakshi Chaudhry, Advocate,
for Mr. Ram Chander, Sr. Panel Counsel
for Union of India.
*****
Vinod K.Sharma,J.
The Petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the sentence awarded to the petitioner by respondent No.4 in a Summary Court Martial.
The petitioner also challenged the order dated 21.12.1994, vide which the petition filed by the petitioner under Army Act Section 164(2) was dismissed. As a consequential relief the Crl. Writ Petition No. 1502 of 1999 -2- petitioner sought reinstatement in service with continuity of service and all consequential benefits.
When this case came up for hearing before this court, counsel for the respondents referred to Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (for short "the Act") to plead that the case is required to be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal (hereinafter called "AFT"). Section 34 of the Act reads as under:-
"Transfer of pending cases.-(1) Every suit, or other proceedings pending before any court including a High Court or other authority immediately before the date of establishment of the Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of action whereon it is based, is such that it would have been within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, if it had arisen after such establishment within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal.
(2). Where any suit, or other proceeding stands transferred from any court including a High Court or other authority to the Tribunal under sub-section (1),-
(a) the court or other authority shall, as soon as may be, after such transfer, forward the records of such suit, or other proceeding to the Tribunal;
(b) the Tribunal may, on receipt of such records, proceed to deal with such suit, or Crl. Writ Petition No. 1502 of 1999 -3- other proceeding, so far as may be, in the same manner as in the case of an application made under sub-section (2) of section 14 from the stage which was reached before such transfer or from any earlier stage or de novo as the Tribunal may deem fit."
Rule 6 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008, which regulates the place of filing application before the Armed Forces Tribunal, reads as under:-
"Place of filing application.-(1) An application shall ordinarily be filed by the applicant with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction-
(i) the applicant is posted for the time being, or was last posted or attached; or
(ii) where the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen:
Provided that with the leave of the Chairperson the application may be filed with the Registrar of the Principal Bench and subject to the orders under section 14 or section 15 of the Act, such application shall be heard and disposed of by the Bench which has jurisdiction over the matter.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
rule (1), a person who has ceased to be in service by reason of his retirement, dismissal, discharge, cashiering, release, removal, Crl. Writ Petition No. 1502 of 1999 -4- resignation or termination of service may, at his option, file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application."
Thus, as per Rule 6(2) of the Rules referred to above, the persons, who have ceased to be in service by reasons of retirement, dismissal, discharge, cashiering, release, removal, resignation or termination, can file application before Registrar of the bench within whose jurisdiction such persons are ordinarily residing. Accordingly, the petitioner would be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of AFT at Chandi Mandir as he is resident of place under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Chandi Mandir.
In view of the above legal provisions, the case is transferred to the Tribunal constituted under the Act. The Registry is directed to transfer the records of the present petition to the AFT at Chandi Mandir.
Disposed of accordingly.
The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 9.4.2010.
11.03.2010 (Vinod K. Sharma) 'sp' Judge