SEPOY ISLAM KHAN Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.1.2011 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal dismissing TA No.64/2010 in which the petitioner had challenged the order dated 26.10.1994 discharging him from service. It may be noted that TA No.64/2010 was the number assigned by the Armed Forces Tribunal to W.P.(C) No.850/1999 which was filed by the petitioner in this Court and since the Armed Forces Tribunal was constituted during the pendency of the said writ petition in this Court, it was transferred to the Tribunal for adjudication. THE second order which has been challenged is dated 28.2.2011 dismissing RA No.7/2011 under cover of which application the petitioner sought a review of the order dated 20.1.2011. On 25.4.1994 the Brigadier In-charge issued a notice to the petitioner alleging that in the 11 years' service rendered by him he had earned 4 red ink entries. Prima facie opining that the petitioner was not fit to be retained in service, petitioner was called upon to show cause against the proposed action to discharge him from service.

(2.) THE 4 red ink entries earned by the petitioner pertained to his being found having committed an offence punishable under Section 39(a) of the Army Act and vide order dated 9.11.1983 sentenced to undergo 7 days' RI. THE next month the petitioner repeated the offending act and for which vide order dated 17.12.1983 he was sentenced to RI for 7 days. For having committed another offence vide order dated 10.9.1991 the petitioner was sentenced to undergo RI for 28 days and the offence was having violated Section 63 of the Army Act. On 7.12.1991 the petitioner was found guilty of using insubordinate language before a superior officer, an offence under Section 40(c) of the Army Act for which the petitioner was deprived promotion to the rank of L/Nk.

(3.) A perusal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner which got transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal would reveal, that vide para 4 to 6 thereof he has challenged the penalties imposed on 9.11.1983 and 17.12.1983. Thereafter, we find that in para 10 to 13 thereof the petitioner has challenged the penalty imposed upon him on 10.9.1991.