While ruling on a very significant legal point pertaining to the legality of ‘displeasure award’ by the army authorities, the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Major Deepak Punia vs Union of India And Others in CWP-2109-2024 (O&M) and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:103066-DB and so also in 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 195 that was pronounced as recently as on 6.8.2024 has made it indubitably clear that the “Displeasure Award” passed by armed forces authorities can be examined by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). It is a matter of common knowledge that a “displeasure” is a censure that is awarded to the military personnel for dereliction of duty. We see in the present case that a commissioned officer was awarded a “displeasure” after a matrimonial dispute arose with his wife that led to litigation.
While tilting the scales in favour of AFT ruling explicitly that it has got jurisdiction to examine its legality, the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sudhir Singh and Hon’ble Mr Justice Karamjit Singh minced just no words to say in no uncertain terms that, “It is not disputed that the action of the Army Authorities in awarding censure to the petitioner is an administrative decision. It is also not disputed that the said order has the operational force for 10 years, affecting the promotional avenues of the petitioner. Thus, against such administrative action, in our opinion, the learned AFT, has got the jurisdiction to examine its legality.” It must be noted here that the Chandigarh High Court was hearing a plea of a commissioner officer against the order that was passed by the AFT whereby the Original Application challenging the “displeasure” award that was filed by him was dismissed on the grounds of limitation as well as maintainability.
At the very outset, this remarkable, robust, rational and recent judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sudhir Singh for a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Karamjit Singh sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The present petition has been filed against the order dated 24.11.2023, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (For short ‘the AFT’), whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as maintainability.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the facts of the case stating that, “The petitioner is a Commissioned Officer and he got married to Ms. Ankita on 19.04.2019. The said marriage did not last for very long. The differences between the parties led to inter-se litigation between them. A show cause notice dated 11.01.2021 was issued to the petitioner contemplating an administrative action against him for his misdemeanours. He submitted a reply dated 17.02.2021, but it was not found unsatisfactory and consequentially vide order dated 16.03.2021, the petitioner was awarded a “Displeasure”. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid administrative action has the operational effect for 10 years and it will hamper his carrier as the said “Displeasure” would seriously affect the chances of his promotion.”
As we see, the Division Bench then discloses in para 3 observing that, “The Original Application filed by the petitioner before the AFT was dismissed, firstly on the ground of delay. It was found by the learned AFT that the petitioner had failed to show any sufficient cause so as to warrant condonation of delay and that a litigant cannot be permitted to challenge an order whenever he deems fit convenient to do so.”
As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 4 that, “While referring to Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 (for short ‘the Act’), it was found that the issue raised by the petitioner did not fall within the definition of service matters and, therefore, the Original Application was held to be not maintainable.”
Do note, the Division Bench points out in para 5 noting that, “At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned action of the authorities awarding “Displeasure” to the petitioner is an administrative order. It is further submitted that such administrative order, having operational force for 10 years, is seriously affecting the carrier of the petitioner and, therefore, the AFT has a jurisdiction to examine the legality of the impugned action. But the learned AFT did not take into consideration the said aspect the matter and proceeded on to hold that the Original Application filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation.”
On a more serious note, the Division Bench then notes in para 6 while citing the recent and relevant case laws that, “As regards maintainability, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the “Displeasure” being censure in nature, is an administrative order and thus, the same is amenable to the jurisdiction of the AFT. He relies upon the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Col S.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. OA-1725/2021 decided on 07.11.2023, wherein an order awarding censure against the applicant therein (an Army Officer), was adjudicated upon. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Col. Sandeep Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors. in W.P.(C) 7541/2023 & CM APPL/ 29232/2023 decided on 28.05.2024. It is, thus, submitted that once the controversy involving the similar issue has been adjudicated upon by the Principal Bench of the AFT, the dismissal of the Original Application filed by the petitioner by learned AFT, is legally not sustainable.”
On the contrary, the Division Bench then also reveals in para 7 observing that, “On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Union of India, though defends the impugned order passed by the AFT, yet he does not controvert the factum of the aforesaid order passed by the Principal Bench of the learned AFT.”
On the face of it, the Division Bench then stipulates in para 8 questioning that, “After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the short question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the impugned order passed by the Army Authorities awarding “Displeasure” to the petitioner, falls within the jurisdiction of the AFT.”
Most significantly and most forthrightly, what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment is then encapsulated in para 9 postulating that, “It is not disputed that the action of the Army Authorities in awarding censure to the petitioner is an administrative decision. It is also not disputed that the said order has the operational force for 10 years, affecting the promotional avenues of the petitioner. Thus, against such administrative action, in our opinion, the learned AFT, has got the jurisdiction to examine its legality.”
Adding more to it, the Division Bench then hastens to add in para 10 stating that, “Moreso the controversy involved in the present petition, is covered by the decision of the Principal Bench of the learned AFT in Col S.K. Singh (supra).”
It is certainly worth noting that the Division Bench while conceding the genuine reasons for the delay that occurred on part of the petitioner notes in para 11 that, “As before the learned AFT, the petitioner had taken grounds for approaching the Tribunal belatedly, but in our opinion the period of 06 months, particularly when it is stand of the petitioner that the severity of the order of “Displeasure” came to his knowledge, during the matrimonial proceedings, when such order was produced by his wife, it cannot be said that the present one is a case where there is a deliberate or willful delay on the part of the petitioner.”
Finally and as a corollary, the Division Bench then directs and holds in para 13 observing clearly, cogently and convincingly that, “In view of the above, we allow the present petition and set aside the order dated 24.11.2023, passed by the learned AFT. Accordingly the matter is remitted to the learned AFT to decide the same on merits. As there appears to be no deliberate or willful delay on the part of the petitioner, we hope that the learned AFT will decide the matter on merits, uninfluenced by the delay part, if any.”
All said and done, the sum and substance of this notable judgment which has been authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sudhir Singh for a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Karamjit Singh is that the Armed Forces Tribunal is beyond a straw of doubt fully empowered to examine the legality of ‘displeasure award’ that had been passed by the army authorities. So there can be thus just no gainsaying that this must always be implemented in letter and spirit as ruled by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in this leading case so explicitly, elegantly, eloquently and effectively! No denying!
Author Bio
