LAWS(ALL)-1997-11-143

SUBEDAR RAM ASHISH MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On November 24, 1997
Subedar Ram Ashish Mishra Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER came to this Court contending that in view of arbitrariness in annual confidential report in respect of the petitioner and his consequent supersession by his juniors, he submitted a statutory complaint under Section 26 of the Army Act. By letter dated 31 -8 -1990 at Annexure -2 to the writ petition the petitioner was informed that the said statutory complaint had been considered by the Chief of the Army Staff and rejected. Challenging the same this writ petition was filed. The respondents filed counter -affidavit and the petitioner filed rejoinder -affidavit.

(2.) AT the time of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the rejection of the statutory complaint of the petitioner under Section 26 of the Army Act by one word order is illegal and it suffers from irregularity as no reason has been given in support of the decision. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Army authorities are entitled to dispose of statutory complaints with one word order only when the same are under Section 164(2) of the Army Act but such one word order under Section 25 of the said Act is not permissible. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this connection in the case of Capt. S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India : AIR 1990 SC 1984, in support of the aforesaid contention.

(3.) UNDER Section 26 of the Army Act, 1950 complaint can be filed under various circumstances. In the present case the dispute relates to alleged arbitrariness in annual confidential reports of the petitioner. On a complaint by the petitioner such matter requires to be decided under Section 26 of the Army Act. As regards necessity of giving reasons by Administrative authorities the law referred to on behalf of the petitioner has been quoted from the judgment in the case of Capt. S.N. Mukherjee (supra). The relevant portion of the said judgment runs as follows: