FAYAZ KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek monetary compensation of Rs.5.00 crores from the respondents. The case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Naib Subedar (RT) with the rank of Junior Commissioned Officer in 25th Battalion Rajput Regiment on 18/9/1997. Sometime in July, 2003 the petitioner's father, who was a retired principal visited the Petitioner's Unit. He states that his father left from Gauhati - where the petitioner was posted, for his home town in Shahjhanpur, UP. On 8/7/2003, during the course of his travel, his father picked up a quarrel with a army official over a berth. Due to the aforesaid incident, the petitioner claims that a false allegation was made against his father that he was a man of ISI and connected with Osama-bin-Laden. The petitioner claims that the army personnel planted some books on the petitioner's father and claimed that the same belonged to him. On wrong and false allegations, an FIR was registered against the petitioner's father under the Officials Secret Act, 1923. The petitioner states that he was illegally detained under 51 Sub-area headquarters Narangi on the ground that he was involved in espionage. He was not issued any show cause notice and in violation of the Army Act and Rules, no court of enquiry was conducted against him. No charge sheet was issued to him in relation to the allegation made against him.

(2.) The petitioner states that the respondents prepared a statement which was attributed to the petitioner, which he was forced to sign. The petitioner states that between 23/12/2003 to October, 2004, he performed his duties and during this period no show cause notice was issued to him. He made complaints to the higher authorities, complaining of torture and harassment meted out to him. On 26/10/2004, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for the first time, alleging that on 23/24/7/3, the petitioner had admitted his guilt of handing over books relating to the Army to his father for handing over to his younger brother, who was preparing for an examination. It was alleged that the petitioner had committed an offence under Sec. 5 of the Official Secret Act. The petitioner sent his reply, explaining all the facts and circumstances and assailed the legality and constitutionality of the action taken against him. On 11/8/2005, the respondents dismissed the petitioner from service without assigning any reason. His appeal was also rejected on 4/5/2006. He preferred a writ petition before this Court to assail his dismissal, which was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal and registered as T.A. No. 336/2009. On 11/1/2010, the petitioner' father passed away while suffering from mental pain and agony caused by the Army officials. On 25/1/2010, the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner and held that the respondents could not have dismissed the petitioner without holding a Court Martial. On 27/6/2011, the competent authority accorded sanction for the reinstatement of the petitioner into service with effect from the date of dismissal with all consequential benefits relating to service. The Special Leave Petition preferred before the Supreme Court, eventually came to be rejected on 11/2/2016.

(3.) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire exercise undertaken by the respondents - both against his father, and against the petitioner, was completely illegal and with a view to subject the petitioner and his father to harassment. Learned counsel submits that the action was completely mala fide and arbitrary. On that premise, the petitioner seeks compensation for the injury caused by the respondents to him and his father in the form of mental torture, harassment, ostracisation in society, and the defamation that he suffered on being labelled as a spy.