Ex Sub Lajje Ram (Army) vs UOI & Others on 25 November 2025

O R D E R

25.11.2025

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for ordering cessation of surveillance on the applicant with immediate effect as also payment of cost of litigation.

2. Breif facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 19/9/1960. While he was posted at 4/3 GR and on the date of his joining the Unit, some Army personnel resented against an officer due to which many Unit Personnel including the applicant were expelled after issuing a Show Cause Notice and eventually dismissed from service on 21/8/1981 under Section 20 (i) of the Army Act 1950 read with Rule 17 of the Army Rules, Annexure A/1. At the time of his expulsion, the applicant was put on surveillance through local police vide letter dated 1981 which is still continuing even after his acquittal and even after writing so many letters to the local police station and to the Army authorities, but the surveillance still continues. Based on the Review Petition dated 22/4/1988 submitted under Section 164 (2) of Army Act against the dismissal Order dated 21/8/1981 of the applicant, the dismissal of the applicant was remitted and the applicant was deemed to have been discharged from service from the date of his dismissal with all pensionary benefits vide Order dated 20/8/1990, Annexure A/2. Having been aggrieved on account of surveillance, the applicant has filed this OA, praying for relief.

3. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement and at first they raised preliminary objections with regard to prayer of the applicant for cessation of surveillance put on the applicant, as the Respondents had not imposed or ordered any surveillance as alleged by the applicant. Moreover, the applicant had failed to place on record any order of imposing or directing his surveillance by the Respondents and, hence, in the absence of any order or even particulars of the order, the OA filed by the applicant is not maintainable. Also, the alleged surveillance of the applicant was being done by the local police and not by Army authorities. Further, the applicant was enrolled in the Army as a Havildar Instructor in the Army Education Corps on 19/9/1960 and was promoted to the rank of Subedar on 02/5/1979. He was administratively dismissed from service on 21/8/1981 by the Order of the Chief of the Army Staff under the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the Army Act 1950, read in conjunction with Army Rule 17. He was dismissed from service for not taking effective steps in containing the collective insubordination, assault and affrary that had taken place in 4/3 Gorkha Rifles on the night of 08/9 Oct 1979. The applicant had failed to report the incident to his superiors in the Unit. However, based on the Review Petition dated 22/4/1988 filed by the applicant under Section 164 (2), the case of the applicant was considered and the punishment awarded to him was remitted and the dismissal was converted into discharge vide Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 20/8/1990. He was granted service pension accordingly.

4. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5. It is evident from the material placed on record that the applicant was dismissed from service while he was serving with 4/3 GR for his inability to contain the mass mutiny, assault and affray that had happened in the Unit on the intervening night of 08/09 Oct 1979 for which he was dismissed from service wef 21/8/1981 by the Chief of the Army Staff. However, based on the Review Petition filed by the applicant against the dismissal, Govt of India, Ministry of Defence, vide their letter No 7(7)/90/D(AG) dated 20/8/1990 had taken a considerate decision and his dismissal was remitted and he was deemed to have been discharged from service from the date his dismissal became effective. Accordingly, the applicant was granted service pension and all other terminal benefits as admissible. The Respondents have unequivalocally stated that they had no role whatsoever in placing any sort of perceived surveillance on the applicant post his dismissal from service.

6. Perusal of record further reveals that the applicant had filed this OA on 03/8/2016 on a perceived grievance of his having been placed under surveillance by the local police which has been denied by the Respondents in their Reply Statement as they have no role in putting any such surveillance on the applicant. Moreover, after filing the OA, neither the applicant nor his designated Counsel has shown any enthusiasm and/or interest to pursue the matter as is evident from the fact that when the matter was taken up for hearing in the past occasionson 19/9/2024 and on 24/3/2025, none appeared on behalf of the applicant. Today also one appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

7. In view of the foregoing and since no surveillance of any sort was imposed on the applicant by the Army authorities, we find no substance in the plea of the applicant and the OA is dismissed being devoid of an iota of merit.

8. The OA is disposed off accordingly. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-