UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus LT COLONEL DHARAMVIR SINGH

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 582 · Decided: 15-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
LT COLONEL DHARAMVIR SINGH
(Civil Appeal No.1714 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 15, 2019
[ DR. DHANANJAYA  Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Army Act, 1959 – Order of attachment of respondent for
initiating disciplinary action under Army Instructions 30/86 –
Communications were intimated to the respondent to report to the
unit of attachment – Writ petition before Manipur High Court by
respondent challenging the legality of these orders – Jurisdiction
of the Manipur High Court challenged on the ground that the
respondent at the time of the initiation of the action of attachment
was based at Nanded in Maharashtra and the orders were issued
by the Headquarters at New Delhi – High Court  proceeded to
entertain the Writ Petition on the submission urged before it that the
order of attachment had been issued for the purpose of holding an
enquiry in respect of incidents which had taken place at Imphal
when the respondent was posted there – The hearing was adjourned
to consider the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition
and until then the orders impugned were stayed – On 24.01.2019,
High Court confirmed the earlier ad-interim order – On appeal,
held: High Court was manifestly in error in entering upon an area
which related to the exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction of the
Army under the Army Act, 1950 – The admitted position was that
the respondent was posted at Nanded in Maharashtra – Manipur
High Court had no reasonable basis to exercise jurisdiction – The
challenge in the writ petition which was instituted by the respondent
before the High Court related exclusively to the order of attachment
which was followed by two communications requiring him to proceed
to the place of attachment – An officer subject to the discipline of
the Army Act, 1950 must abide by the regulations, if the disciplinary
jurisdiction is sought to be invoked – It was manifestly inappropriate
for the High Court to take upon itself the task of pre-empting the
exercise of that jurisdiction and taking over the essential function
   [2019] 4 S.C.R. 582
  582
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
583
of determining whether or not recourse to the disciplinary
jurisdiction was warranted – Service law – Armed Forces –
Jurisdiction – Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 – s.3(o).
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court was manifestly in error in
entering upon an area which relates to the exercise of the
disciplinary jurisdiction of the Army under the Army Act 1950.
The admitted position is that the respondent was posted at Nanded
in Maharashtra. The Single Judge had no reasonable basis to
exercise jurisdiction. [Para 13] [587-H; 588-A]
2.1  The challenge in the Writ Petition which was instituted
by the respondent before the High Court related exclusively to
the order of attachment dated 5 October 2018, which was followed
by two communications dated 2 November 2018 requiring him to
proceed to the place of attachment. An officer subject to the
discipline of the Army Act 1950 must abide by the regulations, if
the disciplinary jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. It was
manifestly inappropriate for the High Court to take upon itself
the task of pre-empting the exercise of that jurisdiction and taking
over the essential function of determining whether or not recourse
to the disciplinary jurisdiction was warranted. [Para 13]
[588-B-C]
2.2  The assumption of jurisdiction by the High Court in a
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was
misconceived. Also, having regard to the definition of the
expression “service matters” in Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces
Tribunal Act 2007 and the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces
Tribunal under Section 14, such a Writ Petition ought not to have
been entertained by the High Court. The course of action followed
by the Single Judge has serious repercussions for the maintenance
of discipline in the Army. Discipline is the essence of the
organisation and structure of an Armed Force. [Para 15]
[588-E-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1714
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.12.2018 and 24.01.2019
of the High Court of  Manipur at Imphal in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1031
of 2018.
UNION OF INDIA v. LT COLONEL DHARAMVIR SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
Aman Lekhi, ASG, R. Bala, Ms. Priyanka Das, Ms. Uttara Babbar,
Arvind Kumar Sharma,  Ms. Bhavana Duhoon,  Advs. for the Appellants.
Colin Gonsa

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