Armed Forces Tribunal
Ex CfnTech (Computer) Sateesh Kumar (Army) vs UOI & Others on 29 October 2025
**ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR**
17.
**OA (A) No 01/2021**
No-14671276N Cfn/Tech (Computer) Sateesh Kumar, 6340(I) Mech Workshop, Jalipa Cantt, Barmer (Raj)
.... Applicant
Versus
1. 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi - 110011
2. 2. The Chief of the Army Staff, IHQ of MoD (Army), DHQ PO, New Delhi - 110011
3. 3. Col Raj Kumar Singh
The then Commanding Officer, 4 Training Battalion, 1 EME Centre, Secunderabad
.... Respondents
For Applicant : None present
For Respondents : Mr Pyare Lal, Advocate
**CORAM:**
**HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J)**
**HON'BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)**
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
**ORDER**
**29.10.2025**
1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the Applicant has prayed to quash the findings and sentence of the Summary Court Martial on 17.08.2019 and Order dt 02.03.2020 passed by GOC Dakshin Bharat Area and grant all consequential benefits to the Applicant.
2. The Respondents have raised preliminary objection of the grounds that the Applicant has challenged the findings and sentence awarded by Summary Court Martial (SCM) on 17.08.2019 wherein the Applicant was awarded sentences of (i) "To be reduced to Ranks" and (ii) "To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months and 29 days in military custody and Order dt 02.03.2020 passed by GOC Dakshin Bharat Area rejecting the petition dt 05.10.2019 filed by the Applicant under Section 164(2) of Army Act, 1950. The summary punishments are excluded from the definition of service matters except where the punishment of dismissal or imprisonment for a period of more than three months is awarded under Section 3 (o) of AFT Act, 2007. Therefore, the OA is not a matter to be challenged in the AFT and, hence, is not maintainable.
3. Relevant portion of Rule 3 of Army Act, 2007 reads as under:- "3(o). "service matters", in relation to the persons subject to the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) and the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), means all matters relating to the conditions of their service and shall include- "(i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits;
(ii) tenure, including commission, appointment, enrolment, probation, confirmation, seniority, training, promotion, reversion, premature retirement, superannuation, termination of service and penal deductions;
(iii) summary disposal and trials where the punishment of dismissal is awarded;
(iv) any other matter, whatsoever,
**But shall not include matters relating to-**
(i) Orders issued under section 18 of the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) and section 18 of the the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950); and
(ii) transfers and postings including the change of place or unit on posting where individually or as a part of unit, formation or ship in relation to the persons subject to the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) and the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950);
(iii) leave of any kind;
(iv) **Summary Court-Martial except where the punishment is of dismissal or imprisonment for more than three months;**
(p) "summary disposals and trials" means summary disposals and trials held under the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) and the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950); (q) "Tribunal" means the Armed Forces Tribunal established under Section 4."
4. In the present case, the Applicant was awarded punishment of (i) Reduction to ranks and (ii) Rigorous Imprisonment in military custody for two years and 29 days, i.e., less than three months by the Summary Court Martial. Therefore, the OA (Appeal) is not maintainable as this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the case.
5. The OA (Appeal) stands disposed off accordingly.
Sd/-XXX
(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)
Ssy/-
Sd/-XXX
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)