BRIGADIER J K BANSAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule D.B. By this writ petition the petitioner challenges the order issued by Director, Institute of Nuclear Medicines and Allied Sciences (INMAS) dated 3rd September, 2003 under the authority of Head Quarter, Western Command. By the said impugned order the petitioner Brigadier J.K. Bansal, VSM has been attached with Head Quarter Technical Group EME, Delhi Cantt. This has been done pursuant to a complaint by one civilian Trilok Chand. The complaint was that the petitioner got admission of his daughter in Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology in B.E. Course on the basis of false certificate about his disability, under Defence Quota rules of Delhi University.

(2.) It was contended before us by Shri Ramesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner suffered injury in 1984 in the field operation during Operation Blue Star and second injury in 1989 at peace station. It was contended that pursuant to the guidelines of Delhi University pertaining to Defence Quota, the daughter of the petitioner was entitled for availing admission in the Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology on the basis of injury suffered by the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner neither misrepresented nor gave any false declaration in order to get admission of his daughter under defence quota. It was contended that if a complaint was received by the respondent, the respondent ought to have held a Court of Inquiry to ascertain the facts but without ascertaining the facts, passed the . impugned order which is not only arbitrary but also irrational, whimsical and illegal. It was contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was on the permanent roll of Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO). In this regard a list of permanent appointed officers in the DRDO is filed, the same is at page 73 of the paper-book. It was contended before us that the petitioner joined as Major in the DRDO and thereafter got all his promotions in the DRDO itself. It was further contended that a departmental inquiry was conducted in the DRDO on the basis of the complaint of Trilok Chand and that inquiry fully exonerated the petitioner. However, that inquiry report was neither taken into consideration nor any reason for not agreeing to the said report has been shown to us. Even if DRDO was a i different department, non-consideration of relevant material vitiates the process of I passing the impugned order. It was further contended that later on the petitioner was approved for consideration for promotion to the rank of Major General. However, since 4th June, 2003 result of said promotion board has not been declassified.

(3.) On the other hand, Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned Counsel for the respondents has contended that the Court of Inquiry was not conducted as there was overwhelming evidence of cheating and misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. It was contended by learned Counsel for the respondents that the certificate dated 14th April, 2000 issued by Major General S.K. Dewan was not correct in view of the Court of inquiry held pursuant to the injury received by the petitioner in 1984 and report received thereon. Ms. Acharya has contended that what the petitioner received was an injury and, therefore, that would not be termed as disability as at the time of issuance of the certificate, the petitioner was fit and was in Shape I. Another argument of Ms. Acharya was that during the pendency of this writpetition, the respondent has now issued charge-sheet to the petitioner.However, the General Court Martial has been stayed by this Court. On the basis of aforesaid arguments, it was contended that the petitioner has submitted a disability certificate though he as not disabled, he has submitted a false certificate, even though it might have been issued by superior officer. The petitioner ought not to have utilised the said certificate for the purposes of admission of his daughter.