Under section 31, an appeal to Supreme Court is maintainable with leave of Tribunal provided that the ground should be a point of law of general public importance

Ravikiran Shukre | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 25th February 2020 

Case: Ex. Lac Yogesh Pathania v. Union of India (Civil Appeal no. 14214 of 2016)

Facts of the case:

1. The present appeal under Section 30 read with Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 along with IA No. 1 of 2016 seeking leave to appeal arises out of an order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh, Regional Bench at Chandimandir.
2. The incident pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant happened after 2240 hrs in Dakota ‘A’ Block and at the main gate. A Court of Inquiry was conducted followed by summary of evidences. Thereafter the appellant was tried by District Court Martial on seven charges of misconduct. The District Court Martial has found the appellant guilty of charges.
3. The incident happened is that, on 22.05.2009, there was verbal fight with use of abusive language between Accounts Conversion Course trainees and Module II airmen trainees in the TV Room, over the change of TV channel. Squadron Duty Officer (Sgt BP Singh) and Orderly Officer (JWO JA Rana) got the TV room closed to avoid further fight amongst the trainees. The LAC S. Santra, sensing the possibility of further fight between the two groups of the trainees, informed the situation to WO Agar Singh. WO Agar Singh in turn informed MWO M. L. Ranwan (Cat Asst, Asst Flt Cdr Catering Faculty), who directed Agar Singh and other two faculty instructors Sgt A K Yadav and Sgt D Pradeep to the scene of disturbance Dakota A Block. On reaching to the scene of disturbance Dakota ‘A’ Block they found the trainees hooting, shouting and yelling, whistling and creating nuisance after the lights out time.
4. Before District Court Martial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses, whereas the appellant examined 3 witnesses in defence. After examining the evidence on record, the appellant was given punishment of rigorous imprisonment for five months and also an order of dismissal from service was passed. Such punishment was confirmed on 09.03.2010 subject to modification of punishment of rigorous imprisonment being reduced to a period of two months. It is thereafter a statutory complaint was filed which was also dismissed.
5. The Tribunal, in appeal under Section 15 of the Act, examined the evidence led by the parties and found no error in the findings recorded by District Court Martial and consequently dismissed the appeal. It is, thereafter, the present appeal with an application for permission to file appeal has been preferred.

Judgment:

1. The allegations against the appellant are that he misbehaved with the senior officers when they visited Dakota ‘A’ Block.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal in proper manner and in fact has been misread. The learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the statements of PW 2 Santra, PW 8 D. Pradeep and PW12 Dheeraj Dalal to contend that the statements of such witnesses do not prove the allegation of whistling by the appellant. It is argued that PW12 Dheeraj Dalal Accounts Assistant of 408 Air Force Station was declared hostile. The witness was examined to prove the charge no. 2 that is the appellant at 405 Air Force Station at about 2245h, on 22.05.2009, improperly caused disturbance by whistling at A- 9 billet.
3. Supreme Court after appreciating the evidence; come to a conclusion that there is no need of interference by this court in terms of jurisdiction vested in it, under Sections 30 (1) and 31 (1) of the Armed Forces Act, 2007.
4. And therefore court come to a conclusion that, in terms of Section 31 of the Act, an appeal to this Court is maintainable with the leave of the Tribunal and such leave can be granted on the ground that a point of law of general public importance or it appears to the Supreme Court that the point is one which ought to be considered by that Court. The point on which this Court will exercise jurisdiction is a point of law of general public importance. We do not find that any point of law of general public importance is involved which may warrant grant of leave to the appellant. Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2016 along with Civil Appeal is dismissed.