Armed Forces Tribunal Can Examine Legality Of 'Displeasure Award' Passed By Army Authorities: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that the "Displeasure award" passed by armed forces authorities can be examined by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT).

A “displeasure” is a censure awarded to military personnel for dereliction of duty. In the present case, a commissioned officer was awarded a "displeasure" after a matrimonial dispute with his wife led to litigation.

Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Karamjit Singh said, "It is not disputed that the action of the Army Authorities in awarding censure to the petitioner is an administrative decision. It is also not disputed that the said order has the operational force for 10 years, affecting the promotional avenues of the petitioner. Thus, against such administrative action, in our opinion, the learned AFT, has got the jurisdiction to examine its legality."

The Court was hearing a plea of a commissioner officer against the order, passed by the AFT, whereby the Original Application challenging the "displeasure" award filed by him was dismissed on the grounds of limitation as well as maintainability.

The Officer was married in 2019, and marital discord between the couple led to litigation. A show cause notice then to the petitioner in contemplating an administrative action against him for his"misdemeanours". He submitted a reply, but it was not found unsatisfactory and consequentially vide order dated 16.03.2021, the petitioner was awarded a “Displeasure.”

The counsel appearing for the Officer, Rajesh Sehgal, submitted that the aforesaid administrative action has an operational effect for 10 years and will hamper his career as the said “Displeasure” would seriously affect the chances of his promotion.

"The Original Application filed by the petitioner before the AFT was dismissed, firstly on the ground of delay. It was found by the learned AFT that the petitioner had failed to show any sufficient cause so as to warrant condonation of delay and that a litigant cannot be permitted to challenge an order whenever he deems fit convenient to do so," he added.

While referring to Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 ( Act), the Tribunal found that the issue raised by the petitioner did not fall within the definition of service matters and, therefore, the Original Application was held to be not maintainable.

After hearing the petition, the Court noted that the controversy involved in the present petition is covered by the decision of the Principal Bench of the AFT in Col S.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors [OA-1725/202].

Speaking for the bench Justice Sudhir Singh said, "As before the AFT, the petitioner had taken grounds for approaching the Tribunal belatedly, but in our opinion the period of 06 months, particularly when it is stand of the petitioner that the severity of the order of “Displeasure” came to his knowledge, during the matrimonial proceedings, when such order was produced by his wife, it cannot be said that the present one is a case where there is a deliberate or willful delay on the part of the petitioner."

In light of the above, the Court set aside the impugned order and said "As there appears to be no deliberate or willful delay on the part of the petitioner, we hope that the learned AFT will decide the matter on merits, uninfluenced by the delay part, if any."

Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Verma, Sr. Panel Counsel for the respondents-UOI

Title: MAJOR DEEPAK PUNIA v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 195

Click here to read/download the order