# UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. LT COLONEL DHARAMVIR SINGH

- **Citation:** [2019] 4 S.C.R. 582
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-02-15
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No.1714 of 2019
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-ors-v-lt-colonel-dharamvir-singh-33493
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Army Act, 1959 - Order of attachment of respondent for
initiating disciplinary action under Army Instructions 30/86 -
Communications were intimated to the respondent to report to the
unit of attachment - Writ petition before Manipur High Court by
respondent challenging the legality of these orders - Jurisdiction
of the Manipur High Court challenged on the ground that the
respondent at the time of the initiation of the action of attachment
was based at Nanded in Maharashtra and the orders were issued
by the Headquarters at New Delhi - High Court proceeded to
entertain the Writ Petition on the submission urged before it that the
order of attachment had been issued for the purpose of holding an
enquiry in respect of incidents which had taken place at Imphal
when the respondent was posted there - The hearing was adjourned
to consider the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition
and until then the orders impugned were stayed - On 24.01.2019,
High Court confirmed the earlier ad-interim order - On appeal,
held: High Court was manifestly in error in entering upon an area
which related to the exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction of the
Army under the Army Act, 1950 - The admitted position was that
the respondent was posted at Nanded in Maharashtra - Manipur
High Court had no reasonable basis to exercise jurisdiction - The
challenge in the writ petition which was instituted by the respondent
before the High Court related exclusively to the order of attachment
which was followed by two communications requiring him to proceed
to the place of attachment - An officer subject to the discipline of
the Army Act, 1950 must abide by the regulations, if the disciplinary
jurisdiction is sought to be invoked - It was manifestly inappropriate
for the High Court to take upon itself the task of pre-empting the
exercise of that jurisdiction and taking over the essential function
 [2019] 4 S.C.R. 582
 582
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
583
of determining whether or not recourse to the disciplinary
jurisdiction was warranted - Service law - Armed Forces -
Jurisdiction - Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 - s.3(o).
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court was manifestly in error in
entering upon an area which relates to the exercise of the
disciplinary jurisdiction of the Army under the Army Act 1950.
The admitted position is that the respondent was posted at Nanded
in Maharashtra. The Single Judge had no reasonable basis to
exercise jurisdiction. [Para 13] [587-H; 588-A]
2.1 The challenge in the Writ Petition which was instituted
by the respondent before the High Court related exclusively to
the order of attachment dated 5 October 2018, which was followed
by two communications dated 2 November 2018 requiring him to
proceed to the place of attachment. An officer subject to the
discipline of the Army Act 1950 must abide by the regulations, if
the disciplinary jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. It was
manifestly inappropriate for the High Court to take upon itself
the task of pre-empting the exercise of that jurisdiction and taking
over the essential function of determining whether or not recourse
to the disciplinary jurisdiction was warranted. [Para 13]
[588-B-C]
2.2 The assumption of jurisdiction by the High Court in a
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was
misconceived. Also, having regard to the definition of the
expression "service matters" in Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces
Tribunal Act 2007 and the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces
Tribunal under Section 14, such a Writ Petition ought not to have
been entertained by the High Court. The course of action followed
by the Single Judge has serious repercussions for the maintenance
of discipline in the Army. Discipline is the essence of the
organisation and structure of an Armed Force. [Para 15]
[588-E-G]

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
LT COLONEL DHARAMVIR SINGH
(Civil Appeal No.1714 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 15, 2019
[ DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Army Act, 1959 - Order of attachment of respondent for
initiating disciplinary action under Army Instructions 30/86 -
Communications were intimated to the respondent to report to the
unit of attachment - Writ petition before Manipur High Court by
respondent challenging the legality of these orders - Jurisdiction
of the Manipur High Court challenged on the ground that the
respondent at the time of the initiation of the action of attachment
was based at Nanded in Maharashtra and the orders were issued
by the Headquarters at New Delhi - High Court proceeded to
entertain the Writ Petition on the submission urged before it that the
order of attachment had been issued for the purpose of holding an
enquiry in respect of incidents which had taken place at Imphal
when the respondent was posted there - The hearing was adjourned
to consider the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition
and until then the orders impugned were stayed - On 24.01.2019,
High Court confirmed the earlier ad-interim order - On appeal,
held: High Court was manifestly in error in entering upon an area
which related to the exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction of the
Army under the Army Act, 1950 - The admitted position was that
the respondent was posted at Nanded in Maharashtra - Manipur
High Court had no reasonable basis to exercise jurisdiction - The
challenge in the writ petition which was instituted by the respondent
before the High Court related exclusively to the order of attachment
which was followed by two communications requiring him to proceed
to the place of attachment - An officer subject to the discipline of
the Army Act, 1950 must abide by the regulations, if the disciplinary
jurisdiction is sought to be invoked - It was manifestly inappropriate
for the High Court to take upon itself the task of pre-empting the
exercise of that jurisdiction and taking over the essential function
 [2019] 4 S.C.R. 582
 582
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
583
of determining whether or not recourse to the disciplinary
jurisdiction was warranted - Service law - Armed Forces -
Jurisdiction - Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 - s.3(o).
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court was manifestly in error in
entering upon an area which relates to the exercise of the
disciplinary jurisdiction of the Army under the Army Act 1950.
The admitted position is that the respondent was posted at Nanded
in Maharashtra. The Single Judge had no reasonable basis to
exercise jurisdiction. [Para 13] [587-H; 588-A]
2.1 The challenge in the Writ Petition which was instituted
by the respondent before the High Court related exclusively to
the order of attachment dated 5 October 2018, which was followed
by two communications dated 2 November 2018 requiring him to
proceed to the place of attachment. An officer subject to the
discipline of the Army Act 1950 must abide by the regulations, if
the disciplinary jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. It was
manifestly inappropriate for the High Court to take upon itself
the task of pre-empting the exercise of that jurisdiction and taking
over the essential function of determining whether or not recourse
to the disciplinary jurisdiction was warranted. [Para 13]
[588-B-C]
2.2 The assumption of jurisdiction by the High Court in a
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was
misconceived. Also, having regard to the definition of the
expression "service matters" in Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces
Tribunal Act 2007 and the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces
Tribunal under Section 14, such a Writ Petition ought not to have
been entertained by the High Court. The course of action followed
by the Single Judge has serious repercussions for the maintenance
of discipline in the Army. Discipline is the essence of the
organisation and structure of an Armed Force. [Para 15]
[588-E-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1714
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.12.2018 and 24.01.2019
of the High Court of Manipur at Imphal in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1031
of 2018.
UNION OF INDIA v. LT COLONEL DHARAMVIR SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
Aman Lekhi, ASG, R. Bala, Ms. Priyanka Das, Ms. Uttara Babbar,
Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Advs. for the Appellants.
Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Shreeji Bhavsar, Satya Mitra, Advs.
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The respondent is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Indian Army. On
20 September 2016, as an officer of the Intelligence Corps, he was
posted to 3 Corps Intelligence and Surveillance Unit1. On 30 June 2018
he was posted from 3 CISU as an Officer Commanding 2 Detachment
in Imphal to Nanded in Maharashtra. His successor, Lt Colonel RP
Nanda addressed two letters on 30 June 2018 and 2 July 2018 to his
Commanding Officer implicating breaches of discipline, violations of
the Arms Act 1959, and security and administrative lapses by the
respondent. According to the petitioners, on being directed to report to
Unit Headquarters by his Commanding Officer at 3 CISU, the respondent
moved to Dimapur. On 4 July 2018 a Habeas Corpus Petition2 was
instituted before the High Court of Manipur by his spouse. On 5 July
2018, the High Court directed the authorities to ensure the presence of
the respondent. In compliance with the order of the High Court, the
respondent appeared in Court, when an order was passed, recording
that:
"Prima facie as on today, Lt.Col.Dharamvir Singh is not in
illegal custody or in the custody of any of the Officers of
the respondent/department."
On 5 October 2018 an order was issued attaching the respondent
to Hq 56 Artillery Brigade Unit for initiating disciplinary action under
Army Instructions 30/86. He instituted a Writ Petition before the High
Court of Manipur under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to
challenge the validity of the attachment order dated 5 October 2018
issued by the Additional Directorate General, Discipline and Vigilance,
Adjutant General's Branch, Integrated HQ of the Ministry of Defence
(Army), New Delhi. The order of attachment reads thus :
1 ["3 CISU"]
2 Habeas Corpus Petition No 11 of 2018
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
585
"Attachment Order :
1. Ref. HQ Eastern Comd Letter No.201940/157/A1(Dv-2) dated
29 Sep 2018 (copy enclosed for ready reference).
2. IC 57196X Lt. Col. Dharamvir Singh ex OC No.2 FID, 3 CISU
presently posted to 52 Maharashtra NCC Bn, Nanded,
Maharashtra is hereby attached to 56 Arty Bde/56 Inf Div/3 Corps
under the provisions of AI 30/86.
3. The offr be directed to report to 56 Arty Bde/56 Inf Div/3
Corps forthwith and compliance report to this effect may please
be fwd to this HQ."
3. The order of attachment was followed by a communication
dated 2 November 2018 of HQ DG NCC, Ministry of Defence and a
similar communication of the NCC Directorate, Maharashtra requiring
the respondent to report to 56 Arty Bde/56 Inf Div/3 Corps.
4. The Writ Petition which was instituted before the High Court
of Manipur on 5 November 2018, specifically called into question the
legality of these orders. The prayers in the petition are extracted below:
"ii. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing (i) the
letter dated 5.10.2018 issued by the Additional Directorate
General, Discipline and Vigilance, Adjutant General's Branch,
Integrated HQ of MOD (Army), New Delhi 110011, (ii) letter
dated 2.11.2018 issued by the HQ DGNCC, Ministry of Defence,
West Block-IV, RK Puram, New Delhi - 110066 and (iii) letter
dated 2.11.2018 issued by NCC Directorate, Maharashtra AFI
Building, Bombay Hospital Lane, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai - 400020."
5. A learned Single Judge of the High Court entertained the Writ
Petition on 5 November 2018. A submission was made before the High
Court that an order of attachment, as prescribed under Army Instruction
No.30 of 1986, can be ordered only when a disciplinary action has been
contemplated and when the order of attachment was issued on 5 October
2018, a tentative charge-sheet had not been furnished to the officer.
6. An objection was raised to the jurisdiction of the High Court to
entertain the Writ Petition, since the respondent at the time of the initiation
of the action of attachment was based at Nanded in Maharashtra and
UNION OF INDIA v. LT COLONEL DHARAMVIR SINGH
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
586
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
the orders were issued by the Headquarters at New Delhi. Yet the High
Court proceeded to entertain the Writ Petition on the submission which
was urged before it that the order of attachment had been issued for the
purpose of holding an enquiry in respect of incidents which had taken
place at Imphal when the respondent was posted there. The hearing
was adjourned to 23 November 2018 to consider the objection to the
maintainability of the Writ Petition. Until then the orders impugned were
stayed.
7. On 24 January 2019, the High Court confirmed the earlier
ad-interim order. While doing so, the High Court adverted to a file which
was placed in a sealed cover before it. The High Court noted that the
order of attachment was ordered pursuant to a communication dated
29 September 2018 of the Lieutenant General and General Officer
Commanding (GOC) enclosing a report dated 2 July 2018 of Lt Col R P
Nanda, who was transferred in place of the respondent. It is at that
stage that the High Court also noted that the order of attachment appeared
to have been issued after the respondent had filed an affidavit on 20 July
2018 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 11 of 2018. The High Court observed
that the subject of the said Criminal Writ Petition pertained to an allegation
against certain members of the 3 Corps Intelligence Unit going back to
18 August 2011. The High Court took note of the fact that an SIT has
been constituted by the Guwahati High Court in Writ Petition (C) 2481
of 2014. On the basis that nothing appears to have been done by any
authority in respect of the alleged incidents which took place on 18 August
2011, the High Court proceeded to confirm its interim order dated
5 November 2018.
8. Notice was issued by this Court in the present proceedings on
8 February 2019. In the meantime, further proceedings before the High
Court and the impugned orders dated 5 November 2018 and 24 January
2019 were stayed.
9. On service of notice, on the request of Mr Colin Gonsalves,
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, the Special
Leave Petition was directed to be listed on 15 February 2019 since it
was apprehended that in view of the interim order of this Court the
disciplinary jurisdiction would be invoked.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
587
10. We have accordingly heard Mr Aman Lekhi, learned Additional
Solicitor General of India (ASG) with Mr R Balasubramanian, learned
Counsel and Mr Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel with Mr Shreeji
Bhavsar, learned Counsel.
11. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the
appellants by Mr Aman Lekhi, learned ASG is that in entertaining the
Writ Petition, the High Court has encroached upon an area which falls
within the discipline of the Army. The respondent, it has been submitted,
is an officer governed by the Army Act 1950. The provisions of the
Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 govern all matters relating to the
conditions of service including discipline and other issues. In the
circumstances, it was urged that there was no justification for the Manipur
High Court to entertain the Writ Petition. At the relevant time, before
the order of attachment was issued, the respondent had been posted to
Nanded in Maharashtra. The ASG submitted that the exercise of the
jurisdiction by the High Court virtually pre-empts the disciplinary
jurisdiction of the competent authority in respect of an officer governed
by the Army Act 1950.
12. Mr Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel submitted that
the respondent had addressed a communication on 9 September 2016 to
the GOC-in-C, Eastern Command making allegations in regard to certain
incidents which took place in 2011. Learned Counsel urged that the
respondent was pressurized by the then CO, 3 CISU to withdraw his
letter dated 9 September 2016 which he did on 20 September 2017. A
complaint, he submits, was addressed to the Chief of the Army Staff on
1 July 2018. Mr Gonsalves submitted that the learned Single Judge of
the High Court was justified in entertaining the Writ Petition since the
respondent, in an affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 11 of 2018, has made
serious allegations in regard to the conduct of the members of 3 Corps
Intelligence and Surveillance Unit in regard to the death of three
individuals from Manipur in 2010-2011. In the alternative, Mr Gonsalves,
submitted that attachment of the respondent may be altered to another
unit so as to ensure fair dealing.
13. In our view, the High Court was manifestly in error in entering
upon an area which relates to the exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction
of the Army under the Army Act 1950. The admitted position is that the
UNION OF INDIA v. LT COLONEL DHARAMVIR SINGH
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
respondent was posted at Nanded in Maharashtra. The learned Single
Judge had no reasonable basis to exercise jurisdiction. Mr Gonsalves
has adverted to the fact that the spouse of the respondent initiated a
petition for habeas corpus initially before the High Court of Manipur.
Significantly, the challenge in the Writ Petition which was instituted by
the respondent before the High Court related exclusively to the order of
attachment dated 5 October 2018, which was followed by two
communications dated 2 November 2018 requiring him to proceed to the
place of attachment. An officer subject to the discipline of the Army Act
1950 must abide by the regulations, if the disciplinary jurisdiction is sought
to be invoked. It was manifestly inappropriate for the High Court to take
upon itself the task of pre-empting the exercise of that jurisdiction and
taking over the essential function of determining whether or not recourse
to the disciplinary jurisdiction was warranted.
14. Mr Colin Gonsalves has placed reliance on a communication
which was issued by the respondent to Lt Gen Praveen Bakshi, GOCin-C, Eastern Command on 9 September 2016. There was no material
before the High Court to link the initiation of the disciplinary enquiry to
the grievance which was made by the respondent as far back as on
20 September 2016.
15. The assumption of jurisdiction by the High Court in a Writ
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was misconceived. We are
also of the view that having regard to the definition of the expression
"service matters" in Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act
2007 and the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal under Section 14,
such a Writ Petition ought not to have been entertained by the High
Court. The learned Single Judge should have exercised caution and ought
to have been circumspect before he proceeded to stay an order of
attachment. Such pre-emptive judicial strikes are unwarranted. The
course of action followed by the Single Judge has serious repercussions
for the maintenance of discipline in the Army. Discipline is the essence
of the organisation and structure of an Armed Force. Before concluding,
we make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the
allegations, in the exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction which shall be
dealt with in accordance with law. There is no merit in the alternate
submission. This Court cannot take over the function of determining
which unit the respondent should be assigned, pending the disciplinary
proceedings.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
589
16. We allow the appeal and set aside the impugned orders of the
High Court dated 5 November 2018 and 24 January 2019. In
consequence, Writ Petition (Civil) 1031 of 2018 filed by the respondent
before the High Court of Manipur shall stand dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs. Pending applications are accordingly disposed of.
Devika Gujral
 Appeal allowed.
UNION OF INDIA v. LT COLONEL DHARAMVIR SINGH
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
B