- (1.) The petitioner, a Major of Indian Army, has preferred the instant writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the General Officer Commanding, 15 Infantry Division awarding punishment of "severe reprimand" .
(2.) After enactment of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (In short, Act), the petition was remitted to Armed Forces Tribunal, Lucknow on 23.4.2010. Sections 33 and 34 of the Act provide that after notification, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and all other courts shall be barred and the pending matter in the High Court shall be remitted immediately before the tribunal after its establishment. The notification came into force on 15.6.2008. For convenience, Sections 33 and 34 of the Act are reproduced as under : 33. Exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts.-On and from the date from which any jurisdiction, powers and authority becomes exercisable by the Tribunal in relation to service matters under this Act, no Civil Court shall have, or be entitled to exercise, such jurisdiction, power or authority in relation to those service matters. 34. Transfer of pending cases.- (1) Every suit, or other proceeding pending before any court including a High Court or other authority immediately before the date of establishment of the Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of action whereon it is based, is such that it would have been within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, if it had arisen after such establishment within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal. (2) Where any suit, or other proceeding stands transferred from any court including a High Court or other authority to the Tribunal under sub-section (1),--- (a) the court or other authority shall, as soon as may be, after such transfer, forward the records of such suit, or other proceeding to the Tribunal; (b) the Tribunal may, on receipt of such records, proceed to deal with such suit, or other proceeding, so far as may be, in the same manner as in the case of an application made under sub-section (2) of section 14, from the stage which was reached before such transfer or from any earlier stage or de novo as the Tribunal may deem fit."
(3.) It appears that Principal Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi had passed an order on 19.2.2010 and held that the question of punishment with regard to severe reprimand may not be adjudicated by the Armed Forces Tribunal in view of the definition contained in Section 3 of the Act. For convenience, relevant portion from the order passed by the Principal Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi is reproduced as under : "It may be mentioned that the definition in Section 3(o)(i)(ii)(iii) of the Act is in the nature of substantive law and confers jurisdiction to the Tribunal. However, Section 3(o)(iii) restricts the jurisdiction in the matter of Summary disposal only where the punishment of dismissal is awarded. This provision is clear and unequivocal. No other meaning can be attributed to it nor any aid is required from other provisions of this Act to interpret it. It shall also be beneficial to refer the views expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Lted. Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd., 2003 5 SCC 705 holding that "the jurisdiction or the power of Arbitral Tribunal is prescribed under the Act and if the award is dehors the said provisions, it would be on the face of it, illegal. Te decision of the Tribunal must be within the bounds and its jurisdiction conferred under the Act or the contract". In the present case the jurisdiction has been conferred to this Tribunal where in the summary disposal the punishment of the dismissal was awarded. Merely because the consequential reliefs may flow with regard to other service matter this court cannot userp jurisdiction. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned that he may like to bring amendments in this petition for availing retiral benefits during the pendency of the petition. That is a separate cause of action and that cannot be mixed up in the present case. Whatever be the position as on today, this court has no jurisdiction. The case is remitted back to Delhi High Court. Parties are directed to appear before Registrar General, Delhi High Court on 12.3.2010 for further date.";