606 of 2003 against the modification order.
Therefore, the proceedings were illegal.
Accordingly, it sentenced the respondent to forfeiture of two years seniority and severe reprimand.
On 24.4.2000, this Court in Union of India and Anr.
The only ground pressed into service was that the Judge Advocate was junior in rank.
The respondent Rajkumar filed post companyfirmation petition under Section 161 2 of the Air Force Act, 1950 in short the Air Force Act on 30.1.2000 and the same was rejected by the Central Government on 24.9.2001.
However, liberty was granted to proceed afresh with GCM.
The modification application filed by Union of India was also dismissed by the High Court.
By order dated 13.4.2000, the Convening Authority of GCM i.e. AOC Incharge, Maintenance Command Head Quarters, Nagpur, on review, ordered for re assembly of the GCM for revision of the sentence.
The Chief of Air Staff on 7.9.2000 companyfirmed the findings and sentence.
The respondent Rajkumar submitted two pre companyfirmation petitions on 25th May, 2000 and 30th June, 2000.
On 13.5.2000, pursuant to the order of 14.3.2000, the GCM re assembled and passed a fresh sentence of dismissal and revoked the earlier sentence.
On 24.1.2000, the GCM proceedings assembled on a charge sheet companytaining nine charges, all of which pertained to improper purchase procedure and financial impropriety.
On 13.3.2000, GCM proceedings companycluded with the finding that the respondent was guilty of four charges.
According to the appellant Union of India, respondent Rajkumar companymitted large scale impropriety in the matter of purchases while he was functioning in the rank of Group Captain.
He rose to the rank of Group Captain in 1998.
The companyveying order for the Assembly of the General Court Martial in short the GCM was issued and Judge Advocate was appointed.
On 12.1.2000, the charge sheet was accordingly issued listing out 9 charges relating to financial impropriety companymitted by him.
By judgment dated 5.8.2002, the Division Bench of the High Court quashed the decision of the GCM proceedings of dismissal of service on the ground that the Judge Advocate was junior in rank and, therefore, the GCM proceedings were vitiated.
With Civil Appeal Nos.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the Union of India submitted that the vires of certain provisions though raised were number pressed into service before the High Court.
128/2003 and 606/2003 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These three appeals relate to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowing the writ petition filed by S.P.S. Rajkumar, the appellant in C.A.No.128 of 2003.
The other two appeals have been filed by the Union of India, i.e. Civil Appeal No.127 of 2003 against the main judgment and Civil Appeal No.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Respondent Rajkumar joined Air Force as a Commissioned Officer in the Logistics Branch.
