THIMMANNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in filing the instant writ petition had challenged the order dated 15-7-1989 passed by the respondent 2, copy as at Annexure-A to writ petition, in passing whereof, the respondent 1 had discharged the petitioner from the military services of the respondent 1 as he was found guilty in a summary Court-martial proceedings held preceding the above discharge order. The petitioner further prayed in the writ petition that the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE respondents are represented by the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, Sri S. N Rajendra. At the instance of the Court, Col. Bhupendra Singh (Retd.), a practising Advocate of this Court, had been requested to assist the Court. Accordingly, he had been appointed as Amicus Curiae in the case.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Biradar, appearing along with Sri G. G. Chagashetty, while taking me through the petition averments, argued that the petitioner had been dismissed from service by an order dated 15-7-1989, copy as at Annexure-A to writ petition. According to him, the petitioner was not served with copy of the chargesheet and further the requisite records inasmuch as there was failure of justice before the respondent 1-Military Authority in conducting the summary Court-martial. It was also pointed out by Sri Biradar that in the earlier round, the petitioner had resorted to a writ petition in W. P. No. 36725 of 1997 before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to supply necessary documents to his party and that this Court on 7-1-1999 allowed the said writ petition at the very stage of preliminary hearing and directed the respondents 2 and 3 to furnish the documents sought for by the petitioner. It was also pointed out by Sri biradar that despite there being a direction of this Court, the respondents did not oblige the petitioner inasmuch as they did not supply the necessary records as directed by this Court and that thereafter it was the learned Counsel for the petitioner to issue a legal notice to the respondent 2, copy as at Annexure-G to writ petition. Sri Biradar had also submitted that there was an inordinate delay in filing the instant writ petition before this Court for the reason that the petitioner was suffering from mental disorder and furthermore the petitioner was not supplied with necessary records for filing the petition in time. Therefore, according to him, a case was made out for condonation of delay of 11 years in filing the instant writ petition.