Sr. No. 07 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 2263/2024 Sat Paul …. Petitioner(s) Through:- Mr. Rudhar Pratap Singh, Advocate vice Mr. Deepak Singh Balouria, Advocate V/s Union of India & Ors. …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICESANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 19.08.2025 1. This petition filed by the petitioner, namely, Sat Paul (an ex-serviceman) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order and judgment dated 15.07.2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, (Regional Bench, Srinagar) at Jammu (for short, “the Tribunal”) in OA No. 410/2019 titled “Sat Paul Vs. Union of India & Ors.” whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA of the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches and also on the principle of constructive res-judicata, as envisaged in Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that in the year 2005, the petitioner approached this Court, challenging his supersession to the rank of Naib Subedar by his junior on the ground that RO had illegally and arbitrarily downgraded his ACR for the year 2002. The writ petition, which was registered as SWP No. 1145/2005 was later 2 WP (C) No. 2263/2024 transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh and registered there as TA No. 16/2014. The aforesaid petition was disposed of by AFT, Chandigarh vide an order and judgment dated 16.09.2016. The plea of the petitioner was accepted and his ACR for the year 2002, which was recorded by RO as “Average” was converted into “High Average”. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Naib Subedar afresh. In the judgment itself, the AFT, Chandigarh took note of all the ACRs right from the year 1998 till 2002, which, of course, included the ACR for the year 2001 recorded by RO as “High Average”. This, to the knowledge of the petitioner, was adverse ACR insofar as his chances of promotion to the next rank of Subedar was concerned. The petitioner had all the opportunity to challenge the ACR of 2001, when he threw challenge to the average ACR recorded for the year 2002. He decided not to do so and, therefore, shall be deemed to have abandoned his right to challenge the ACR of 2001. It is only when upon re- consideration of the case of the petitioner, he was not found to make grade for promotion to the next round of Subedar, the petitioner thought of challenging the ACR of 2002 as well and this he did by filing OA No. 410/2019, after 18 years of the recording of ACR. The Tribunal considered all these aspects and came to the conclusion that the OA was not maintainable for the following two reasons:- (i) That there was inordinate delay of 18 years in approaching the Court/AFT for challenging the ACR recorded in the year 2001 and, therefore, the OA was hit by unexplained delay and laches. (ii) That the petitioner despite having opportunity to challenge the ACR of 2002, when he threw challenge to the ACR of 3 WP (C) No. 2263/2024 2001 by way of SWP No.1145/2005/TA 16 of 2014, but he only chose to throw challenge to the ACR of 2002 and, therefore, the principle underlying Order 2 Rule 2 would be attracted. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the AFT on both the counts is legally correct and unexceptionable. We may agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of the CPC with all its rigours may not be applicable to the proceedings before the AFT, nonetheless, the principle underlying the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 i.e. constructive res-judicata is applicable to all judicial proceedings. That apart, we find no justification given by the petitioner for not challenging the ACR of 2001 in the year 2005, when the petitioner threw challenge to the ACR of 2002 by way of SWP No. 1145/2005. The Tribunal is, therefore, correct in holding that the petitioner has approached the Tribunal after a period of 18 years to challenge the ACR of 2001 and, therefore, the petition is hit by unexplained delay and laches. 4. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 19.08.2025 Diksha Whether the order is speaking? Yes Whether the order is reportable? Yes