15587411F, LANCE HAV. NISHAN SINGH S/O GOPAL SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA
CW/8112/2026 · 2026-05-22
Sudesh Bansal
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 7792 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 7792 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[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
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 Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for.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