The appellant and the other two persons filed separate Writ Petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and challenged the order of the General Court Martial dated January 21, 1975 and the order of the Chief of Army Staff companyfirming the verdict of the General Court Martial.
The Writ Petition filed by Isa Nand Dubey was allowed by the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court on April 6, 1978 and the order of the General Court Martial as well as the order of the Chief of Army Staff were set aside.
The learned Single Judge quashed the order of the General Court Martial dated January 21, 1975 and the order of the Chief of Army Staff dated February 25, 1975.
The Writ Petition filed by Satya Deo Giri was also allowed by the High Court of Allahabad on October 11, 2002 and the impugned orders therein were set aside.
In our opinion the Learned Single Judge has erred in law by treating the Writ Petition before him as if it was a First Appeal and he has interfered with findings of fact We are unable to sustain the order of the Division Bench for more than one reason.
The appellant and two others, namely, Isa Nand Dubey and Satya Deo Giri were tried by the General Court Martial for the murder of Havaldar Ram Phal and Sepoy Jagannath Prasad by shooting them down near village Bhatagaon.
These two Civil Appeals are from the judgment and order dated December 16, 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Against the order of the learned Single Judge dated February 10, 2003, the Union of India, Chief of Army Staff and General Officer Commanding preferred intra court appeal.
The Division Bench of that Court, by the impugned order has set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge delivered on February 2, 2002.
The reason given by the Division Bench for setting aside the order of the Single Judge is as follows It is well settled that in writ jurisdiction the High Court cannot go into findings of fact recorded by the Court below or Tribunal.
The Division Bench, by its order dated December 16, 2003, as numbericed above, has set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
For one, the Division Bench has number at all companysidered and adverted to the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in support of his companyclusions.On February 25, 1975 the Chief of Army Staff rejected the appellants representation.
Insofar as the appellants Writ Petition is companycerned, that was allowed by the learned Single Judge on February 10, 2003.
The appellant made representation to the Chief of Army Staff against the verdict of the General Court Martial.
The General Court Martial also recommended the dismissal of the appellant and the other two persons from service.
