Deciding Case On Merit After Rejecting Plea As Non-Maintainable Is "Material Impropriety": Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that deciding the case on merit after rejecting the plea on maintainability is "gross material impropriety."

The development came while hearing the petition challenging AFT's decision whereby it rejected the plea on maintainability. The High Court while holding that the plea was maintainable, remanded the case back to AFT for fresh decision on merits.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "the makings of a decision on the merits of the lis, naturally is a sequel of gross non application of mind besides becomes ridden with a gross material impropriety. Moreover, the vice of illegality also becomes ingrained in the decision on merits, as became recorded on the lis."

The case pertains to an army officer against whom court-martial was convened for alleged misconduct and irregularities conducted during the service. The officer raised the plea of "the bar of limitation" before the court martial authorities, however the same was rejected. 

An application before AFT was filed challenging the dismissal order passed in Court Martial, however the same was rejected on grounds of maintainability. The AFT opined that only the final order passed is confirmed by the authorities as per Section 153 of the Army's Act, can be challenged before the Tribunal.

The AFT despite rejecting the plea on maintainability decided it on merit.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that the decision on merits after rejecting the plea, would cause prejudice to the applicant.

After hearing the submissions, the Court referred to Section 15 of the Army's Act wherein it is stated that, the AFT has jurisdiction in matters of appeal against court martial including "against any order, decision, finding or sentence passed by a court martial or any matter connected therewith or incidental thereto."

The Court said that "there is conferment of jurisdiction in the AFT, to entertain a petition against any order decision, finding or sentence passed by a court martial or any matter connected therewith."

In light of the above, the Court allowed the plea and directed the AFT to pass a fresh order on merits.

Advocates Rajesh Sehgal, Arun Singla, and Navdeep Singh for the petitioners.

Mr. Rohit Verma, Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents – UOI.

 Title: Colonel Jagpreet Singh Bakshi and Another v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 343

Click here to read/download the order