Rajasthan High Court
CW/8112/2026 of 15587411F, LANCE HAV. NISHAN SINGH S/O GOPAL SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA on 22 May 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8112/2026 15587411F, Lance Hav. Nishan Singh S/o Gopal Singh, Aged About 33 Years, Serving 115 Engineer Regiment, C/o 56 Apo, Military Station, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary,
[2026:RJ-JP:21792]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8112/2026
15587411F, Lance Hav. Nishan Singh S/o Gopal Singh, Aged About 33 Years, Serving 115 Engineer Regiment, C/o 56 Apo, Military Station, Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1.
Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Defense Govt. Of India,dhq Post,new Delhi-110011
2.
Oic Records Engineer, Regiment C/o 56 A.p.o.
3.
The Chief Og Army Staff Coas, Secretariat, Integrated Ho Of Mod (Army), Dho,po New Delhi-110011
4.
Ic No. 69851X Col. Harender Sumra, Commanding Officer, Unit 115,engineer Regiment,pin-914115,c/o A.p.o.
5.
Army No.15597030N, Spr (Driver)Spl Veh.tarsem Singh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Ms. Anjali Minocha
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Gaurav Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
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
22/05/2026
1. Petitioner, a Lance Havildar, is aggrieved by the punishment of ‘Severe Reprimand’ inflicted upon him under Section 80 of the Army Act, 1950 pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 28.08.2025 (Ann.1).
2. As per charge-sheet, petitioner was found to be an accomplice in the misappropriation of FOL, which was considered an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline. Consequently, petitioner was punished, whereagainst he has invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
[2026:RJ-JP:21792] (2 of 2) [CW-8112/2026]
3. In the writ petition itself, petitioner admits that a remedy against the punishment order is available to an aggrieved person under Sections 26 and 27 of the Army Act, 1950. However, there is nothing on record to show that petitioner availed such statutory remedy, hence, invocation of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court without availing the statutory remedy, may not be held to be proper.
4. In such view of the matter, counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to avail the remedy available under Section 26/ 27 of the Army Act, 1950.
5. Permission is granted.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for.
7. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin Sharma/7