R.EZHILARASAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission.

(2.) The order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai, is assailed mainly on the ground that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the provisions contained in Sec. 44 of the Army Act, 1950 [the Act] could not be taken recourse to, as it is not a case where the petitioner was found to be lacking requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Cook.

(3.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner, even if it is assumed that a fake SSLC certificate was submitted by the petitioner, as it did not affect his eligibility to hold the post, no court-martial proceedings could be initiated. The second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that summary court-martial proceedings were drawn contrary to the provisions of the Army Act and the Rules. The third submission is that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex. Sepoy Surendra Singh Yadav v. Chief Record Officer and another , (2019) 9 SCC 140 , in the present case, the provisions contained in Sec. 44 of the Act could not have at all been taken recourse to.