$~100 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2542/2026 & CM APPL. 47890/2026 SEP(GD) DURAI K .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondent Through: Mr Amit Rana , GP for R-UOI Major Anish Muralidhar Army and Capt. Himanshu Tyagi Army CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA O R D E R % 27.07.2026 CM APPL. 47889/2026 (fresh by petr. for early hearing) 1. In view of the submissions made as also for the sufficient cause being shown in the application, the present application is allowed and the matter is taken up for hearing today itself. 2. The date already fixed i.e., 07th October, 2026 stands cancelled. 3. The application stands disposed of W.P.(C) 2542/2026 4. Heard the counsels for the respective parties. 5. The attention of this Court is invited to Clause 442 of the Defence Service Regulation which reads thus:- 442. Review of Summary Punishments awarded to persons subject to the Army Act. Provisions for the review of summary punishments awarded under AA Secs.83, 84 and 85 are contained in AA Secs.87 and 88. Punishments awarded under Army Act Sec.80 may be reviewed by an officer superior in command to the officer who awarded the punishment, and if any such punishment appears to such officer to be illegal, unjust or excessive, such officer may cancel, vary or remit the punishment and make such This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2026 at 15:44:10 direction as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case: Provided that where a punishment is wholly illegal, or is in excess of the punishment authorised by law, it may be cancelled or varied by an Officer-in-Charge Records also. Under AA Sec. 88(b), the COAS has specified the GOC-in-C of a Command as the superior military authority for the purpose of review of punishments awarded to Officers, JCOs and WOs under Army Act Secs 83 and 84. Powers conferred under Army Act Sec. 87 or under this paragraph shall normally be exercised within a period of two years from the date of award of the punishment. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid provision is read along with Section 87 of the Army Act, 1950, and the powers of review can be exercised even beyond the period of limitation of two years as limitation prescribed is directory and not mandatory in nature. 7. As against above, Major Anish Muralidhar, Army states that there is a serious history of default against the petitioner and perhaps that was the reason the powers were not exercised. 8. He further submits that, even if, the wording in the impugned order does not refer to the past conduct of the petitioner, the same can be borne out of the record which is available with him. 9. He submits that either he can be permitted to file written submissions to that effect or else, if directed, the authority can look into the grievance of the petitioner in the matter of exercise of reviewing powers. 10. Having heard the aforesaid, we are of the view that the order impugned dated 11th November, 2024, speaks of not exercising the power in view of the prescribed limitation period of two years. The Impugned Order reads thus:- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2026 at 15:44:10 11. The Defence Service Regulation, even if, provides for limitation for two years, the same is directory and can be exercised even subsequent to the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2026 at 15:44:10 limitation period provided the facts and circumstance so mandate. 12. In the case in hand, there is recommendation in favour of the petitioner by the subordinate authorities that his punishment can be reviewed. The said recommendations are dated 12th July, 2024 issued by the Assistant Record Officer also by Lieutenant Colonel on 18th September, 2024. 13. In such an eventuality, we deem it appropriate to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 11th November, 2024. 14. We direct the Reviewing Authority to exercise the review powers in the matter as provided in clause 442 of the Defence Service Regulation read with Section 87 of the Army Act, 1950, in accordance with law, and that the Reviewing Authority shall not dismiss the review proceedings on the ground of limitation. 15. Let the decision be communicated to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. 16. In terms of the above, the present petition stands disposed of. 17. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 18. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J AMIT SHARMA, J JULY 27, 2026/sky/st This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2026 at 15:44:10