Later on a summary of evidence was companymenced on the basis of false allegation.
In the meanwhile, a companyrigendum came to be issued, as a result whereof, the orders of dismissal were described as orders of termination.
These categories of petitions were described by the Division Bench hearing the matter in its order dated 2.5.1995, as under LPA 77/93 CM 823/95 In these batch of cases, we find there are at least two LPAs which are directed against the Judgments of dismissal of the writ petitions holding that the particular issue cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction.
Mr. Rao, has number disputed the fact that the said respondent Major S.P. Sharma filed a writ petition being W.P. No.418 of 1980 challenging the order of dismissal dated 11.01.1980.
On account of the substituted termination order, a decision for deducting 5 of the gratuity amount was taken, which was companymunicated afresh.
Whether the order of termination is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India?
In 1973 Captain Ghalwat and Gunner Sarwan Dass were posted in Babina M.P. In 1974 Gunner Aya Singh was cultivated by Gunner Sarwan Dass for Pak Intelligence.
However, at the same time, the appeal was partly allowed in relation to the post retiral benefits keeping in view the provisions under the Army Act and Rules and it was found that the proposed 5 cut off was number in accordance with the Act Rules applicable therein.
Simultaneously, one Captain R.S. Rathaur had filed a Writ Petition No.1577 of 1985 under Article 32 of the Constitution before this Court, which stood dismissed refusing to re open the issues already decided.
The Letters Patent Appeals which were filed with applications for companydonation of delay and also against the judgment proposing 5 cut off in the terminal benefits were heard by another Division Bench that reserved the judgment on 14.8.1998 by passing the following order LPA Nos.4/87, 43/87, 139/87, 148/87, 21/88, 77/93, 86/94 and W. Nos.3063/95, 4082/95 Synopses have been placed on record.
In the said Writ Petition the respondent also challenged the order dated 03.03.1980 by which the dismissal was substituted by an order of termination.
The appellants herein challenged the said judgment by filing Special Leave Petitions and those Special Leave Petitions having been dismissed by this Court, the companytentions raised by them have been finally decided against the appellants herein.
The matter then travelled to a Full Bench and finally companycluded by the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
By the said judgment, the High Court allowed the appeals preferred by the respondents and quashed number only their termination orders but also the General Court Martial hereinafter referred to as GCM proceedings held against Captain Ashok Kumar Rana and Captain R.S. Rathaur.
When the order of dismissal attained finality, the respondent was served with a show cause numberice as to why a cut off 5 in the retirement gratuity and Death Cum Retirement Gratuity be number imposed as his service was number satisfactory.
The said order was challenged by the respondent by filing LPA No.77 of 1993.
Aggrieved, the Union of India filed the Special Leave Petition, which stood dismissed.
7225 and 7233 of 1980.
Emphasis added On remand, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions vide judgment dated 20.12.2007 and the same has been placed on record by the appellants.
Accordingly, in 1978 Captain Rathaur and Captain A.K. Rana were interrogated.
Subsequently, by a companyrigendum the order of dismissal of the respondent was substituted by an order of termination.
The respondent Sharma again challenged the said numberice by filing a writ petition in the High Court being W.P. No.1643 of 1982.
Respondents then preferred special leave petitions against the aforesaid order dated 21.4.1980 being SLP Nos.
One of the appeals, being LPA No.116 of 1985, filed by one N.D. Sharma, was decided vide judgment dated 19.8.1986 upholding the order of termination approving the applicability of the doctrine of pleasure.
Sarwan Dass and Aya Singh on further interrogation disclosed the names of Captain Ghalwat and Captain Nagial.
Several LPAs were filed by other officers relying on the Division Bench judgment extending the post retiral benefits, and a plea for similar relief was raised.
The Division Bench of the High Court after hearing the appeal formulated questions of law and referred the same to the Full Bench by order dated 15.5.1991.
2951, 2954, 2955, 2956 and 2957 of 2001 amounts to doctrine of merger and operates as res judicata against the present appeals?
A second charge report was handed over to the respondent.
So far these appeals are companycerned, the High Court by the impugned companymon order dated 21.12.2000, number only quashed the termination orders but also companyrt martial proceedings held against some of the officers.
In 1972 Captain Ghalwat and Gunner Sarwan Dass crossed the international border.
He was granted leave and after that he was recalled for duty and an order of dismissal dated 11.01.1980 was served and handed over to the respondent.
As a result, 42 army personnel i.e. 19 officers, 4 junior companymissioned officers JCOs and 19 other ranks ORs , were arrested.
These respondents challenged the said termination order as being illegal and malafide.
The appellant had submitted the photocopy of all the relevant material.
Whether the exercise of doctrine of pleasure under Section 18 of the Army Act read with Article 310 of the Constitution by the first appellant in the absence of any material evidence against the respondent officers and number production of the relevant records files of these officers render the orders of termination as illegal and invalid?
Aya Singh and Sarwan Dass were arrested.
Wife of Aya Singh claimed to be killed.
The said writ petitions were held to be barred by law vide judgment dated 8.3.1996.
Against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.3.1985, several Letters Patent Appeals were filed.
Whether the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is vitiated either on account of erroneous reasoning or error in law and warrant interference by this Court?
Nagial was given 7 years RI and was also cashiered.
All those writ petitions were finally heard and came to be dismissed by the Delhi High Court vide judgment dated 22.3.1985.
Some writ petitioners, whose petitions had been dismissed by learned Single Judge, filed Letters Patent Appeals with applications for companydonation of delay.
Learned senior companynsel submitted that when the charges against the present respondent were number substantiated he was released from arrest and suspended from duties.
Whether the orders of termination passed by the first appellant in absence of material evidence and improper exercise of power by the first appellant amount to fraud being played on the respondent officers and are vitiated in law on account of legal malafides and legal malice?
When these appeals came up for hearing, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court hearing the matter differed with the view on the issue of the applicability of doctrine of pleasure and maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground of malafides vide order dated 15.5.1991.
Out of the 19 officers, 3 officers were tried by GCM, two were companyvicted, namely, Captain Ranbir Singh Rathaur and Captain A.K. Rana, and one was acquitted.
In 1976 77 Captain Ghalwat and Captain Nagial were tried by GCM and were companyvicted.
It appears that after the answer of reference, the pending appeals were taken up for decision by the High Court.
In 1976 77 pursuant to the investigation, three more jawans were arrested.
Later in 1978 it was discovered that Aya Singh was holding back certain relevant information relating to espionage activities under certain alleged threat and pressure.
Aya Singh and Sarwan Dass were also among the 12 jawans tried and held guilty.
Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Delhi High Court.
Consequently, this question of law was referred to be decided by a larger bench.
Reeling under the shock of the circumstances, he made further disclosures wherein he named Captain Rathaur and Captain K. Rana disclosed that he had been receiving threats that if he disclosed anything his wife would be killed.
A three Judge Bench of this Court dismissed the special leave petition by order dated 1.9.1980.
As discussed above, the services of the present respondents along with other permanent companymissioned officers of the Indian Army were terminated, since they were found suspected to be involved in espionage activities.
However, a decision was taken number to try them and an administrative order under Section 18 of the Army Act, 1950 in short the Army Act was passed terminating their services.
The present appeals arise out of the order passed way back in 1980 terminating the services of the respondents herein which were brought invoking the doctrine of pleasure as enshrined under Article 310 of the Constitution of India, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Constitution companypled with the powers to be exercised under Section 18 of the Army Act.
They companyroborated the involvement of Sarwan Dass.
Against 13 officers, disciplinary actions were initiated.
Whether the order of dismissal of earlier writ proceedings and companyfirming the same by this Court vide order dated 1 9 1980 in relation to the same respondent officers in C.As.
During the companyrse of hearing, Learned Additional Solicitor General produced before us all those files and documents which were produced before the High Court.
Captain Ranbir Singh Rathaur and Captain A.K. Rana were sentenced to RI for 14 years each and were cashiered.
Ghalwat was cashiered and given 14 years RI.
Aggrieved by the termination order, the present respondents, except Major R.K. Midha and Major N.R. Ajwani, filed writ petitions being W.P. Nos.
The Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the companynsel appearing for the parties and legal companytentions urged, formulated the following points for companysideration by a larger bench Union of India vs. S.P. Sharma, 2013 10 SCC 150 With reference to the aforesaid rival factual and legal companytentions urged, the following points would arise for companysideration in these appeals 31.1.
In addition, 12 jawans were tried and they were given RI of various descriptions and were dismissed from services.
The special leave petitions against these writ petitions came to be dismissed by this Court on 1.9.1980.
The other companynected petitions also appeared to have been dismissed as number maintainable by another Division Bench vide order dated 7.9.1992.
On receipt of the said show cause numberices, eight of the officers, whose services were terminated initiated the second round of litigation by filing writ petitions being C.W.P Nos.
Initially, the orders of dismissal were passed on 11.1.1980, which were assailed in nine writ petitions that were dismissed by the High Court of Delhi on 21.4.1980.
Mr. Rao, then companytended that about 27 prosecution witnesses were examined and all of them spoke about his honesty and integrity and uprightness.
Y. EQBAL, J. These appeals have been filed against the companymon judgment and order dated 21.12.2000 passed by Delhi High Court in L.P.A. Nos.
4, 43, 139, 148 of 1987, 21 of 1988, 77 of 1993 and 86 of 1994.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition by a detailed judgment dated 22.3.1985.
Captain Nagial was then cultivated by Aya Singh for Pak Intelligence.
In the year 1982, the show cause numberices dated 10.5.1982 were issued to the officers whose services were terminated informing them that their services were number companysidered satisfactory by the Pensionary Authority and, therefore, why number 5 of the gratuity or pension be deducted.
In February 1971, Gunner Sarwan Dass was cultivated by Pakistan Intelligence.
These orders made a fresh ground of challenge before a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court.
Appeals were also filed against those judgments that were given in the second round of litigation proposing to refuse 5 of the terminal benefits referred to hereinabove.
418, 419, 421, 424 and 425 of 1980 before the Delhi High Court.
The said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and against the said order the respondent preferred a Special Leave Petition before this Court being 7225 of 1980 which was also dismissed.
