12.02.2015 The present petition has been filed against awarding a punishment of severe reprimand on 27.01.1997. The petitioner was served with the charge-sheet for having directly communicated with the higher officers thereby by-passing the chain of command which, by itself, according to army act and rules, tantamount to indiscipline. It is important to mention here that the petitioner had questioned this order before the Honble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition 2597/1997. The petition was disposed off by the Honble High Court on 29.08.1997 on the assurance given by the learned counsel for the respondents that no action will be taken against the petitioner for having directly addressed a communication to the higher officer ignoring the chain of command. It appears that the petitioner was not satisfied with this direction and he approached the Division Bench of Honble Delhi high Court where his plea was rejected and he was asked to approach the Single Judge for the same. On the matter after coming up before the Learned Single Judge on 11.08.2000, it was observed that the petition was meritless as he has been reprimanded by order dated 27.01.1996 much before passing of the court order which would operate prospectively. Therefore, his petition was dismissed leaving the matter as it was. The petitioner has now come up before this court questioning the order of reprimand passed on 27.01.1996. He has raised various grounds to question this order including that he was not heard at the time the punishment was awarded as the respondents had resorted to trial of the petitioner under summary procedure under section 80 of the Army Act. The preliminary objection raised by the respondents is that the petitioner had been tried summarily and awarded a reprimand. This court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain this petition. What has been contended is that under section 3, Sub-Rule (o) (iii) only such orders which are passed in summary proceedings that amount to dismissal can be questioned in the Tribunal. Any order passed by summary disposal which does not amount to dismissal, cannot be questioned in the Tribunal.
2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
3. We are unable to understand as to why the petitioner is before this court as there was a specific direction passed by the Honble Delhi High Court in respect of the order of reprimand passed on 27.01.1996. Honble Delhi High Court had specifically held that no action shall be taken by the respondents. Be as that it may, the fact remains that the petitioner is before this Tribunal against the awarding the punishment of reprimand by a summary disposal and trial. The Tribunal has the power to entertain any petition where summary disposal or trial leads to the punishment of dismissal. No other punishment can be the subject matter of challenge before this Tribunal. Therefore, admittedly, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition.
4. In view of this, we find no force in this petition and the same is dismissed. The petitioner, if he chooses so, may approach the appropriate forum. No order as to costs. ( SUNIL HALI ) MEMBER ( J.N.BURMA ) MEMBER New Delhi
12 February 2015