Skip to content


Col. Punam Bali Vs. Uoi and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtArmed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided On
Case NumberMA No. 246 of 2014 In OA No. 282 of 2013
Judge
AppellantCol. Punam Bali
RespondentUoi and Others
Excerpt:
.....of inquiry the court has observed as under: œtherefore, we hold that ordering of successive courts of inquiry is illegal, arbitrary and smacks of foul play and malafide on the part of the respondents?. 2. however, while allowing the petition, the court of inquiry ordered against the petitioner has not been set aside. 3. on the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that the allowing of the application will tantamount to review of the judgment which can not be permitted in the present case unless there is a proper application. 4. we have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. while scanning through the para 24 of the judgment, we have clearly found that ordering of successive courts of inquiry in the present case is illegal, arbitrary and smacks of foul play and.....
Judgment:

1. This is an application seeking clarification of judgment dated 17.04.2014 passed by this Tribunal. It is stated that in para 24 of the judgment while considering the issue regarding holding of successive court of inquiry the court has observed as under:

œTherefore, we hold that ordering of successive courts of inquiry is illegal, arbitrary and smacks of foul play and malafide on the part of the respondents?.

2. However, while allowing the petition, the court of inquiry ordered against the petitioner has not been set aside.

3. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that the allowing of the application will tantamount to review of the judgment which can not be permitted in the present case unless there is a proper application.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. While scanning through the para 24 of the judgment, we have clearly found that ordering of successive courts of inquiry in the present case is illegal, arbitrary and smacks of foul play and malafide on the part of the respondents. However, due to some inadvertent error, we have not while allowing this petition set aside ordering of the successive courts of inquiry. In our view this is not a reviewing of the judgment but only a clarification of intention of this court as reflected at para 24 of the judgment stated above. It has clearly been stated in the judgment that the ordering of successive courts of inquiry is not in accordance with law. We, therefore, allow the application and direct that the successive courts of inquiry ordered against the petitioner also stand quashed. This order shall form a part and parcel of judgment dated 17.04.2014.

Learned counsel for the respondents orally prayed for granting leave to appeal before the Honble Supreme Court. There is no question of law of public importance involved in this matter. This is not a fit case to grant leave to appeal before the Honble Supreme Court as it does not involve any question of public importance. As such the prayer is declined. MA disposed off accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //