PUJA DUBEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANSH Kumar Dubey, aged 12 years, son of the Petitioner Puja Dubey and Lt. Col. Ajay Kumar Dubey, died on 8th June 2007 during the Parasailing Camp organised by the Army Wives Welfare Association ('AWWA) conducted by the Jat Regimental Centre ('JRC) Bareilly. The Court of Inquiry ('COI), constituted by the Station Headquarters Cell, in its Report submitted on 2nd July 2007 came to the conclusion that there does not appear to be any case of willful negligence of specific nature and that the fatal accident took place as a result of the failure of the ad hoc safety pins getting hooked off/released in the Parasail.

(2.) IN this writ petition, the first prayer is that the findings, opinions and directions of the COI held at Bareilly should be quashed and a fresh COI be held within a fixed timeframe in accordance with the Army Act, 1950 and Rules made thereunder by associating the Petitioner and her husband. The second prayer is for a direction to the Ministry of Defence ('MOD) (Respondent No.1) through the Chief of Army Staff ('COAS) (Respondent No. 2) and the Additional Director General ('ADG) Discipline and Vigilance ('DV'), Adjutant Generals Branch (Respondent No.3), to impose a DV ban against Respondent Nos. 6 to 9, 11 & 12. The third prayer is for a direction to the MOD and COAS to pay the Petitioner token compensation as may be determined by this Court. Factual background

(3.) MS. Rekha Palli, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner at the outset submitted that the Petitioner is not interested at this stage in seeking compensation. Her endeavour was to persuade this Court to order a fresh COI to examine the factors leading to the untimely death of her son and fixing responsibility on the officers concerned. MS. Palli assailed the Report of the COI on various grounds. It is submitted that several important pieces of evidence in particular those of Zarah Khan, Radha Chaudhary and Roopali Bajpai were not accounted for. These witnesses had supported the Petitioners version of what transpired on 8th June 2007. She submitted that the evidence of the sister of the deceased had not been recorded and the Petitioner and her husband did not associate in the COI. Respondent No. 12, Naik Lokesh Kumar was not a qualified instructor as he was only a trainer. Lt. Col. Sanjay Bajpai addressed a letter to the Petitioner on 11th January 2009 clarifying that the statements attributed to him in the report of the COI were incorrectly recorded. MS. Palli referred statements dated 17th July 2008, 20th July 2008 and 31st July 2008 of MS. Roopali Bajpai, MS. Zarah Khan and MS. Radha Chaudhary respectively standing by their version of what transpired at the parasailing camp on 8th June 2007. These three were participants in the camp and had deposed before the COI. MS. Palli also assailed the convening order in which one of the members of the COI was from JRC Bareilly whereas as a rule, officers from other units were to be appointed to constitute a COI. MS. Palli referred to specific findings in the Report of the COI which rendered its conclusions inconsistent with such findings. She pointed out that the COI had proceeded on the basis that no log books regarding the usage of the parasailing equipments were available whereas the Petitioner was able to obtain a copy of the log books through applications made under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Referring to the Notification dated 11th May 2005 concerning imposition of a DV ban, it is submitted that a charge sheet having been filed against Respondent Nos. 4 to 9, 11 and 12, there was no reason why a DV ban was not imposed on the officers. Instead, some of them had been granted promotions.