* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 7th July 2011.
+ W.P.(C) 7018/2010
GUNNER STOREHAND (GD) BANARASI LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Dipak Bhattacharya and
Mr.C.L. Kalia, Advocates
versus
UOI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with
Mr.Sandeep Bajaj, Ms.Neha
Rastogi and Ms.Ria Kaul,
Advocates
+ W.P.(C) 7039/2010
GUNNER MILKHI RAM ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Dipak Bhattacharya and
Mr.C.L. Kalia, Advocates
versus
UOI AND ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with
Mr.Sandeep Bajaj, Ms.Neha
Rastogi and Ms.Ria Kaul,
Advocates
+ W.P.(C) 7040/2010
EX. CAPTAIN SEWA RAM NAGIAL ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Dipak Bhattacharya and
Mr.C.L. Kalia, Advocates
versus
UOI AND ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with
Mr.Sandeep Bajaj, Ms.Neha
Rastogi and Ms.Ria Kaul,
Advocates
WP (C) No. 7018/2010, W.P.(C) No. 7039/2010, W.P.(C) No. 7040/2010
W.P.(C) No. 7041/2010 & W.P.(C) No. 7042/2010 Page | 1
+ W.P.(C) 7041/2010
GUNNER SAT PAL ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Dipak Bhattacharya and
Mr.C.L. Kalia, Advocates
versus
UOI AND ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with
Mr.Sandeep Bajaj, Ms.Neha
Rastogi and Ms.Ria Kaul,
Advocates
+ W.P.(C) 7042/2010
GUNNER HARI SINGH ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Dipak Bhattacharya and
Mr.C.L. Kalia, Advocates
versus
UOI AND ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with
Mr.Sandeep Bajaj, Ms.Neha
Rastogi and Ms.Ria Kaul,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J (Oral)
1. These 5 writ petitioners and many other officers of the
Indian Army were charged by the Military Intelligence for
WP (C) No. 7018/2010, W.P.(C) No. 7039/2010, W.P.(C) No. 7040/2010
W.P.(C) No. 7041/2010 & W.P.(C) No. 7042/2010 Page | 2
espionage. It was alleged that they gave secret information to
the Pakistan Military pertaining to the Indian Army, which was a
threat to the security of the Nation.
2. At a Court Martial held in the year 1976, the petitioners
and others were charged and convicted for offence under
Section 69 of the Army Act read with Section 3 of the Official
Secrets Act. All were cashiered from service and were sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for various periods.
3. The petitioners filed writ petitions before the High Court at
Jammu and Kashmir challenging the verdict of guilt pronounced
by the General Court Martial. These writ petitions were filed in
the year 1978 and were dismissed on 7.4.1983. The judgment
attained finality inasmuch as no appeal was filed against the
judgment and order dated 7.4.1983.
4. Two officers – Mr. Ranbir Singh Rathaur and Mr. A.K. Rana,
who were held guilty by the General Court Martial filed writ
petitions in the Delhi High Court, which were dismissed on
23.3.1982 and 4.6.1991 respectively. The 2 officers challenged
the decision of the learned Single Judge by filing Letter Patent
Appeals.
5. Some officers of the Indian Army, who were not subjected
to a General Court Martial, were dismissed from service in
exercise of power vested in the competent authority under
Section 18 of the Army Act. We may call this power as the
administrative power to dismiss a person without a trial or an
inquiry.
6. Several of them filed writ petitions in this Court challenging
WP (C) No. 7018/2010, W.P.(C) No. 7039/2010, W.P.(C) No. 7040/2010
W.P.(C) No. 7041/2010 & W.P.(C) No. 7042/2010 Page | 3
the administrative dismissals, which writ petitions were tagged
with the Letter Patent Appeals filed by Mr. Ranbir Singh Rathaur
and Mr. A.K. Rana.
7. In the year 1994, one co-accused Sarwan Dass filed an
affidavit stating that Mr. Ranbir Singh Rathaur and Mr. A.K. Rana
were wrongly accused. In the said year the Full Bench of this
Court gave an opinion pertaining to the scope of judicial review
with respect to the scope of judicial intervention against orders
of administrative dismissal under Section 18 of the Army Act.
8. On the basis of twin development i.e. Sarwan Dass a co-
accused filing an affidavit in the year 1984 exonerated
Mr.Ranbir Singh Rathaur and Mr.A.K. Rana, and the decision of
the Full Bench, the two filed fresh writ petitions being
W.P.(C)No.4082/1994 and W.P.(C) No.3063/1995, in which they
re-agitated their conviction by the General Court Martial. The
said two writ petitions were tagged alongwith Letter Patent
Appeals filed by them against the judgment and order dated
23.3.1982 and 4.6.1981 dismissing the writ petitions filed by
them in which they have challenged the verdict of guilt
pronounced against them by the General Court Martial.
9. The writ petitions filed by the persons against whom
administrative dismissal was effected as also the Letter Patent
Appeals filed by Mr.Ranbir Singh Rathaur and Mr.A.K. Rana as
also the two subsequent writ petitions filed by them were
allowed on 21.12.2000 and the proceedings at the General Court
Martial were set aside.
10. Union of India challenged the judgment and order of
21.12.2000, by seeking leave to appeal before the Supreme
WP (C) No. 7018/2010, W.P.(C) No. 7039/2010, W.P.(C) No. 7040/2010
W.P.(C) No. 7041/2010 & W.P.(C) No. 7042/2010 Page | 4
Court. Leave was granted. Civil Appeal No.2949-57/2001 are
pending before the Supreme Court. Operation of the judgment
and order dated 21.12.2000 has been stayed.
11. The petitioners thereafter filed writ petitions in this Court
in the year 2001 praying that they were entitled to the same
relief as was granted to Mr.Ranbir Singh Rathaur and Mr.A.K.
Rana. These writ petitions were adjourned sine die and upon the
constitution of the Armed Forces Tribunal were transferred to
the Tribunal for adjudication.
12. On 22.3.2006, the Supreme Court de-linked such appeals
which pertained to writ petitions filed by those who had suffered
an administrative dismissal and as regard the judgment allowing
W.P.(C) No.4082/95 and W.P.(C) No.3063/1995, for the reason
Mr.Ranbir Singh Rathaur and Mr.A.K. Rana had earlier litigated
and lost the battle, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to
this Court to decide whether the subsequent writ petitions were
maintainable or were barred by res-judicata.
13. On remand, this High Court dismissed the 2 writ petitions
vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2007 holding the said writ
petitions to be barred by res-judicata and hence not
maintainable.
14. The 2 have preferred petition for seeking leave to appeal
against the judgment and order of 20.12.2007 and the petitions
for special leave to appeal are still pending and stated to be
listed before the Supreme Court on 1.8.2011.
15. The reasoning of the Armed Forces Tribunal to dismiss the
second round of litigation initiated by the writ petitioners is the
WP (C) No. 7018/2010, W.P.(C) No. 7039/2010, W.P.(C) No. 7040/2010
W.P.(C) No. 7041/2010 & W.P.(C) No. 7042/2010 Page | 5
same as the reasoning of the Division Bench of this Court as per
order dated 20.12.2007. It has been held that the bar of res-
judicata makes not maintainable the writ petitions.
16. Suffice would it be to state that the view taken by the
Tribunal is in conformity with the view taken by the Division
Bench as per its judgment and order dated 20.12.2007. We are
respectfully bound by the view on the law of precedent.
17. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the
Tribunal and thus, we dismiss the writ petitions. Needless to say
that our dismissal would be the passport for the petitioners to
approach the Supreme Court and as the ultimate fate would be
decided by the Supreme Court when the petition for special
leave to appeal pending before the Supreme Court against the
judgment and order dated 20.12.2007 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court holding that the bar of res-judicata renders
not maintainable subsequent petitions on the same cause are
decided.
18. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J
SUNIL GAUR, J
JULY 07, 2011
pkb
WP (C) No. 7018/2010, W.P.(C) No. 7039/2010, W.P.(C) No. 7040/2010
W.P.(C) No. 7041/2010 & W.P.(C) No. 7042/2010 Page | 6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 7th July 2011.
+ W.P.(C) 7039/2010
GUNNER MILKHI RAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Dipak Bhattacharya and
Mr.C.L. Kalia, Advocates
versus
UOI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with
Mr.Sandeep Bajaj, Ms.Neha
Rastogi and Ms.Ria Kaul,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
For orders see W.P.(C) No. 7018/2010.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J
SUNIL GAUR, J
JULY 07, 2011
pkb
WP (C) No. 7018/2010, W.P.(C) No. 7039/2010, W.P.(C) No. 7040/2010
W.P.(C) No. 7041/2010 & W.P.(C) No. 7042/2010 Page | 7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 7th July 2011.
+ W.P.(C) 7040/2010
EX. CAPTAIN SEWA RAM NAGIAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Dipak Bhattacharya and
Mr.C.L. Kalia, Advocates
versus
UOI AND ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with
Mr.Sandeep Bajaj, Ms.Neha
Rastogi and Ms.Ria Kaul,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
For orders see W.P.(C) No. 7018/2010.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J
SUNIL GAUR, J
JULY 07, 2011
pkb
WP (C) No. 7018/2010, W.P.(C) No. 7039/2010, W.P.(C) No. 7040/2010
W.P.(C) No. 7041/2010 & W.P.(C) No. 7042/2010 Page | 8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 7th July 2011.
+ W.P.(C) 7041/2010
GUNNER SAT PAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Dipak Bhattacharya and
Mr.C.L. Kalia, Advocates
versus
UOI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with
Mr.Sandeep Bajaj, Ms.Neha
Rastogi and Ms.Ria Kaul,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
For orders see W.P.(C) No. 7018/2010.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J
SUNIL GAUR, J
JULY 07, 2011
pkb
WP (C) No. 7018/2010, W.P.(C) No. 7039/2010, W.P.(C) No. 7040/2010
W.P.(C) No. 7041/2010 & W.P.(C) No. 7042/2010 Page | 9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 7th July 2011.
+ W.P.(C) 7042/2010
GUNNER HARI SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Dipak Bhattacharya and
Mr.C.L. Kalia, Advocates
versus
UOI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with
Mr.Sandeep Bajaj, Ms.Neha
Rastogi and Ms.Ria Kaul,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
For orders see W.P.(C) No. 7018/2010.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J
SUNIL GAUR, J
JULY 07, 2011
pkb
WP (C) No. 7018/2010, W.P.(C) No. 7039/2010, W.P.(C) No. 7040/2010
W.P.(C) No. 7041/2010 & W.P.(C) No. 7042/2010 Page | 10