EX. LAC YOGESH PATHANIA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 161 · Decided: 08-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
161
  EX. LAC YOGESH PATHANIA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(I.A. No. 1/2016)
In
(Civil Appeal D. No. 14214 of 2016)
JANUARY 08, 2019
[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – s.30 r/w s.31 –
Disciplinary proceedings – Breach of good order of Air Force
discipline – Court of Inquiry – District Court Martial (DCM) found
appellant guilty for using insubordinate language to his superior
officer, for using criminal force and for act prejudicial to good
order of Air Force discipline – Tribunal concurred with the findings
of the DCM and dismissed the appeal holding that there was direct
evidence to prove misconduct on part of appellant and his
involvement in use of criminal force to senior officer; that appellant
also admitted that he had few drinks that day; that there was direct
evidence of presence of appellant in the unruly crowd and the stand
of the appellant that he was slapped was also not made out from the
evidence on record – Appeal before Supreme Court – Held: The
Tribunal had re-appreciated the evidence and had concurred with
the findings of DCM – The view taken by Tribunal was a plausible
view and, therefore, did not warrant any interference in appeal in
terms of jurisdiction vested in Supreme Court under ss.30 and 31
of the Act – In terms of s.31 of the Act, an appeal to Supreme Court
is maintainable with the leave of the Tribunal and such leave can
be granted on the ground “that a point of law of general public
importance” or “it appears to the Supreme Court that the point is
one which ought to be considered by that Court” – No point of law
of general public importance is involved in the instant case so as to
entitle appellant grant of leave – Air Force Act, 1950 – s.161(2).
Dismissing the I.A. along with the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. PW11 was cross-examined on the question of
manhandling of the appellant but he, categorically, denied the
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 161
161
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
same. In fact, he deposed that the appellant pushed him from
behind, whereas LAC slapped him on his left cheek. The
statement of the witness was that the appellant has consumed
liquor because he was smelling and his speech and behaviour
was not good. The witness asked the appellant as to whether he
had taken drink. The reply of the appellant was that not only he
but everybody had taken drinks then why he alone was being
questioned. PW 11 stated that he held the left arm of the appellant
and moved 2-3 steps towards the billet and told the appellant to
go to billet. But the appellant sat on cement lid of drainage after
moving 5-6 meters. He again held his left arm and told him to go
to billet but he did not go. In the cross-examination, he denied
that he pushed the appellant, he deposed that he held his hands,
as he was under the influence of liquor. He denied the suggestion
that he slapped the appellant. The question as to whether PW 11
has given slaps to the appellant is a question of fact. The Tribunal
examined the statements of the witnesses to uphold charge nos.
3, 5 and 7 as proved. Thus, the stand of the appellant that he was
slapped was not made out from the evidence on record. The
Tribunal re-appreciated the evidence and concurred with the
findings of the DCM. The view taken by the Tribunal was a
plausible view and, therefore, did not warrant any interference in
appeal in terms of jurisdiction vested in this Court under Sections
30 and 31 of the Act.  There is no point of law of general public
importance is involved which may warrant grant of leave to the
appellant.   [Paras 11, 12, 13][166-D-H; 167-A-B, F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. No.1 of 2016 in Civil
Appeal Diary No. 14214 of 2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated  06.08.2015 of the Armed
Force Tribunal, Chandigarh Regional Bench at Chandimandir in O.A.
No. 324 of 2010 and order dated 13.1.2016 in M.A. Nos. 3358 & 3367
of 2015 in O.A. No. 324 of 2010.
D. K. Thakur, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the appellant.
Mrs. Madhvi Diwan, ASG, R. Balasubramanian, Vanktesh, A. K.
Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs. for the respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
163
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. The present appeal under Section 30
read with Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (for short
“the Act”) along with IA No. 1 of 2016 seeking leave to appeal arises
out of an order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh,
Regional Bench at Chandimandir

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.