AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Basheer, J.—Petitioner is now serving as Stores Petty Officer (SPO) under the fourth Respondent in the Indian Navy. Petitioner was imposed with punishment of "Deprivation of Good Conduct Badge" by the disciplinary authority.
It is on record that Petitioner has preferred Exhibit P6 statutory appeal on August 20, 2010 before the Appellate Authority, as provided u/s 23 of Navy Act. However, according to the Petitioner, the Appellate Authority did not bother to dispose of the appeal and he was kept on tenter hooks. He is due to be released from service on September 30, 2011. It was in the above circumstances that the Petitioner had approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, Kochi u/s 14 of the Armed Forces Act, 2007 praying that he may be permitted to continue in service in the Navy by setting aside Annexure-A1 Warrant Punishment Order dated 27.1.2009 and Annexure-A11 OPAFT 1294/2011 Release Serial Order dated 4.8.2010 with retrospective effect and also to grant consequential service benefits.
The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, held that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment imposed by the authority on the Petitioner and accordingly dismissed the original application. The said order is under challenge in this original petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Sri. N. D. Joy, learned Counsel, who appears for the Petitioner, submits that the finding entered by the Tribunal on the question of jurisdiction is manifestly illegal and untenable. He has also raised various other contentions touching upon the sustainability of the order of punishment, more particularly, the tenability of the charge levelled against him. He has invited our attention to the so called arbitrary and high handed action of the authorities in ignoring his several requests to make available to him the relevant records pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. He points out that Petitioner had filed more than one application before the Tribunal praying for a direction to the Respondents to make available the relevant records before the Tribunal. But, those records never saw the light of the day. We do not propose to deal with that issue at this stage in view of the order that we propose to pass.
Petitioner has primarily challenged before the Tribunal the punishment imposed on him in January 2009, apart from the order of his release from service. While assailing the above orders, he raised various contentions touching upon their justifiability and sustainability. The case of the Petitioner appears to be that he is a victim of circumstances and that he never deserved such a punishment and that too for such a trivial charge. He has a further case that his Commanding Officer was bent upon wreaking vengeance on him. We deem it not necessary to delve deeper into the above aspect of the matter since, admittedly, Petitioner has preferred a statutory appeal against the order of punishment of Deprivation of Good Conduct Badge. It is true that Petitioner had not highlighted the fact that his appeal had not been considered by the authority concerned so far. Learned Counsel points out that appeal was filed in August 2010. The appellate Authority did not show even the courtesy of acknowledging receipt of the appeal.
Sri. Parameswaran Nair, learned Assistant Solicitor General, submits that the appeal is now pending consideration before the Navy Chief and that a decision on the appeal will be taken without any further delay. He submits that Respondent No. 2, the Chief of the Naval Staff, will hear the Petitioner if he so desires and take a decision in accordance with law on strict conformity with all principles of natural justice. The above submission is recorded.
Though learned Counsel for the Petitioner has persisted with his contention that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is disproportionate to the charge levelled against him and also that the so called charge is fabricated and ill motivated, we refrain from making any observation on this contention for the obvious reason that the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the order of punishment is now pending consideration before the statutory Appellate Authority. We make it clear that it will be open to the Petitioner to urge all his contentions before the Appellate Authority, which, we have no reason to assume, will not look into the entire aspects of the matter with an open mind.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not propose to consider whether the finding entered by the Tribunal on the question of jurisdiction is correct or not. We make it clear that the Appellate Authority shall take a decision on the appeal untrammeled by any of the observations made or opinion expressed by the Tribunal in the impugned order.
Original petition is disposed of reserving the right of the Petitioner to raise all his contentions before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority shall afford sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner to be heard. Petitioner shall also be entitled to produce all necessary documents before the Appellate Authority, if so advised.
The Appellate Authority shall issue notice of hearing to the Petitioner well in advance and shall dispose of the appeal, after hearing the Petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.