whatsapp x

WhatsApp Number

8750970582

Message
phone x
8750970582
email x
info@lawminds.co.in

Army Personnel Discharged over Fake Certificate Claims Reinstated by Supreme Court [Read Judgment]

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has issued an order for the reinstatement of four army personnel who were discharged for utilizing fake relationship certificates during enrolment. The court emphasized that the individuals had not applied in the reserved category and had not presented any relationship certificates for selection.

The bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal observed in a judgment dated February 9 that there was no indication of any inquiry conducted to verify whether the appellants had indeed submitted relationship certificates for enrolment in the Army. The court highlighted the absence of findings by the respondents confirming the appellants’ presentation of such certificates or the falsity of their claim that no such certificates were provided.

The court set aside the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, which had upheld the discharge certificates and dismissal of the appellants from service on the grounds of fraudulent means. The bench criticized the tribunal for casually affirming the discharge/dismissal order without adequately considering the appellants’ argument that they had applied under the general category, not as relatives of servicemen/ex-servicemen.

The court pointed out that the core issue in the matter was overlooked by both the authorities and the tribunal. Consequently, the orders of discharge/dismissal were deemed vitiated for non-consideration of this crucial aspect.

Regarding the reliance on a newspaper clipping dated September 27, 2009, by the respondents, the court expressed disapproval, noting that it was not part of the tribunal’s record or the appeals. The bench rejected considering the news item, emphasizing that it was merely an informational piece and did not specifically prohibit general category candidates from applying.

The court found that the appellants had submitted copies of their applications, clearly stating their general category status and not claiming any relationship with servicemen/ex-servicemen, NCC, or sports persons.

Consequently, the court ordered the reinstatement of the four personnel with full consequential benefits.

Advocate raises voice against judge & throws case files ;Karnataka HC initiates contempt proceedings [Read Order]

In a dramatic turn of events, the Karnataka High Court recently took action against a lawyer who, in response to the dismissal of an application, engaged in disrespectful behavior towards the court. Justice KS Hemalekha initiated contempt proceedings against the lawyer who, after the rejection of the application, not only threw files in dismay but also made derogatory comments directed at the court.

The court highlighted the lawyer’s rude behavior on multiple occasions, stating that despite previous instances of arrogance, the court had accommodated his presence. The order noted that the petitioner’s counsel had consistently prolonged the proceedings by filing numerous applications, as evident from the order sheet.

Expressing serious concern, the court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings based on various grounds, including the lawyer’s misbehavior, arrogance, backtalk, and violation of court rules. The court emphasized that such actions undermine the dignity of the court and hinder the administration of justice.

“The act and conduct of the advocate tend to undermine the dignity of the Court and hinder the due course of judicial proceedings or administration of justice. The cumulative acts of the advocate would amount to undermine the dignity and majesty of the Court apart from interference with the court’s normal proceedings and procedures,” the order stated.

In response to these actions, the court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to take necessary steps to initiate suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Advocate M. Veerabhadraiah under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court requested the Registrar to present this order before the Karnataka High Court Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

This incident unfolded on February 5, following the court’s dismissal of a plea by Annadurai, who aimed to counter a caveat plea submitted on behalf of Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL). The BEL’s caveat petition, filed by its General Manager, sought notification of any case against BEL. The petitioner’s application was rejected, accompanied by a ₹10,000 cost to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within four weeks. Subsequently, the court instructed the petitioner to argue the main dispute on merits, leading to the lawyer’s objection and disruptive behavior.