w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



G. Suneetha v/s The Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Defense, New Delhi & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- TO THE NEW PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2006PTC235208

Company & Directors' Information:- UNION COMPANY LTD. [Active] CIN = U36900WB1927PLC005621

Company & Directors' Information:- B L AND CO NEW DELHI PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1968PTC004910

Company & Directors' Information:- NEW INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36999TN1940PTC001776

Company & Directors' Information:- UNION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999KA1942PTC000292

    Writ Petition No. 10125 of 2020

    Decided On, 16 July 2020

    At, High Court of for the State of Telangana

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

    For the Petitioner: K. Ram Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondents: Asst. Solicitor General.



Judgment Text


1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.V.V. Charya for learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents.

2. Petitioner is wife of Wing Commander G.R.S. Reddy (27601), AE (L). This writ petition is filed challenging the show cause notice issued by the Air Chief Marshal in Air HQ/C 23401/63/Discip, dated 04.02.2020 in exercise of powers vested under Rule 16 (4) of the Air Force Rules, 1969 calling upon Wing Commander G.R.S. Reddy to submit explanation on various allegations levelled therein and that why he should not be dismissed or removed from service.

3.1. According to learned counsel for the petitioner already a decision was taken by the competent authority to dismiss or remove the Wing Commander G.R.S. Reddy from service and the show cause notice is only an empty formality. Therefore, the Wing Commander G.R.S. Reddy need not be compelled to respond to the show cause notice and therefore nothing remains for the officer to submit explanation.

3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Wing Commander G.R.S. Reddy was implicated in a false criminal case and he is now in imprisonment. On the ground that he was arrested and detained in custody, he was placed under suspension. As the Wing Commander is in imprisonment, it is not possible for him to submit effective explanation to the show cause notice.

3.3 In support of his contention that post-decisional hearing to impose major punishment is ex facie illegal, learned counsel placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in H.L. Trehan and others v. Union of India and others (1989 (1) SLR 7).

3.4. Learned counsel further submits that though ordinarily the affected officer should avail the legal remedy on his own, since he is detained in custody, it is not possible for him to prosecute legal remedy and therefore this writ petition is filed by the wife of Wing Commander seeking redressal for the Wing Commander and therefore the writ petition is maintainable.

3.5. He further submits that though an aggrieved officer of Air Force has to avail remedy before the Armed Forces Tribunal constituted under the Armed Forces Tribunals Act, there is no presiding officer in Secunderabad. Thus, petitioner has no effective remedy except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, no fetters are imposed on the writ Court in entertaining the writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting said remedy and having regard to the extraordinary circumstances in this case, this writ petition is maintainable.

4.1. In response, Sri K.V.V. Charya, learned counsel representing learned Assistant Solicitor General raised preliminary objection on maintainability of the writ petition. According to learned counsel, petitioner has effective remedy before the Armed Forces Tribunal and the Bench in Chennai and Principal Bench in New Delhi are functioning. Cases from Hyderabad are also filed before the Principal Bench and matters are being taken up.

4.2. He submits that the writ petition in the present form is not maintainable. Wife of the petitioner has no locus standi to agitate the service grievance of an Air Force Officer. He would submit that even if the writ petition can be instituted, without subjecting the officer to avail the remedy under the Armed Forces Tribunals Act, the writ has to be instituted by the aggrieved officer, but not by the wife.

4.3. He further submits that Rule 16 (4) of the Rules vests power in the Chief of Air Staff to dispense with conducting court marshal for the reasons recorded and call upon the delinquent officer to show cause why punishment of dismissal from service should not be imposed. By referring to various clauses in Rule 16 of the Rules, he submits that ultimately the Chief of Air Staff has to submit report to the Government of India and it is for the Government of India to take a decision. He submits that the Rule enables the Chief of Air Staff to suggest any other punishment other than dismissal or removal from service and it is for the Government of India to consider the proposals submitted by the Chief of Air Staff. Therefore, it cannot be said that already a decision was made and post-decisional exercise is undertaken. It is premature for the petitioner to apprehend that the only punishment that would be imposed is dismissal from service. Further, when the Rule is not under challenge, the writ is not maintainable at the stage of show cause notice.

5. I have carefully considered the respective submissions. The matter is at the stage of show cause notice. Therefore, at this stage, the Court is not going into merits of the allegations levelled and the decision that may be taken after the explanation, if any, offered by the officer, is considered.

6. There is force in the submission of learned standing counsel Sri K.V.V. Charya that the writ petition in the present form filed by wife of Wing Commander is not maintainable agitating the service grievance. Service dispute is a grievance in personam. Further, even if it is true that officer cannot prosecute legal remedy as he is lodged in jail, as next friend, at the most, she could have deposed on his behalf, but cannot file writ petition in her name. Thus, on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. However, to test the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a post-decisional hearing and to entertain the writ petition filed by wife of the officer, the relevant provision governing the issue is also considered. Rule 16 of the Air Force Rules, 1969 deals with ‘Dismissal or removal of officers for misconduct’. Ordinarily, court-marshal has to be held drawing up charges alleging misconduct and only if findings are recorded against the officer, punishment of dismissal or removal from service can be imposed. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 16 carves out exception to normal procedure and vests extraordinary power in the Chief of Air Staff to dispense with placing the petitioner for trial before the court-martial and straight away issue notice calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed or removed from service by assigning reasons for dispensing with court-martial and supplying all the relevant documents. Once a show cause notice is issued by supplying all the relevant documents, the concerned officer should submit his explanation and oppose the action proposed dispensing with conducting courtmartial and to dismiss or remove him from service. On considering such explanation, if any filed, if the Chief of Air Staff is not satisfied with the explanation, he should submit a report to the Central Government together with his recommendations on punishment that can be imposed. He can also recommend to impose lesser punishment though show cause notice envisaged dismissal/removal. On consideration of the same, the Central Government, may pass orders imposing punishment of dismissal or removal from service or a lesser punishment. It may even exonerate the officer.

8. Having regard to the scheme of Rule 16 of the Rules, it cannot be said that the show cause notice and exercise thereon amounts to post-decisional hearing warranting interference by this Court on that ground. Further, Rule 16 (4) of the Rules is not under challenge. In terms thereof, the competence of the Chief of Air Staff is not in dispute. He derives power from the statutory scheme to dispense with court-marshal and issue show cause notice. Having regard to the scheme of Rule 16 of the Rules, as noticed above, it cannot be assumed that the Chief of Air Staff would act with a closed mind, would not appreciate the objections of the petitioner and would only go with the provisional decision taken by him. Further, the Chief of Air Staff is not the decision making authority. He is vested with power only to issue show cause notice, consider the explanation offered in response to the show cause notice and submit his report to the Central Government. Further, the Rule also vests discretion in the Chief of Air Staff to suggest to Central Government a lesser punishment than dismissal/removal. The power to take decision ultimately vests in the Central Government. Having regard to statutory scheme, the scope of consideration is wide. Thus, the show cause notice is not vitiated.

9. Armed Forces Tribunal is vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate all disputes of officers working in Air Force. This is not a matter of grave urgency to dispense with the remedy available to an officer under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunals Act and straight away institute a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that too, not by aggrieved officer. By this process statutory redressal mechanism cannot be aborted. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261), the Armed Forces Tribunal is the Court of first instance to adjudicate service disputes of officers working in Indian Air Force and

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

aggrieved party has to exhaust the remedy under the Act before coming to the High Court. No endeavour is made by petitioner to knock the doors of the Armed Forces Tribunal to redress the grievance before rushing to this Court. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the Wing Commander to raise all pleas available in law in response to the show cause notice or to work out remedies as available in law. It is open to him to persuade the competent authority to grant extension of time, if so advised. It is for the competent authority to consider such request. It is needless to observe that the competent authority would act with all fairness and consider the explanation offered, if any, with open mind before submitting the report to the Government of India. It is also made clear that there is no expression of opinion on any issue affecting Wing Commander G.R.S. Reddy and his array of pleas are preserved. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

21-10-2020 UETC India Ltd., New Delhi Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-10-2020 M/s Sahara India Thru. Partner Om Prakash Srivastava & Another Versus U.O.I. Thru Secy. Ministry Of Labour, New Delhi & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
19-10-2020 G. Mahesh. & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
16-10-2020 A. Prasad & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
15-10-2020 Gautam Mehra Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
15-10-2020 M/s. Harihar Collections & Another Versus Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-10-2020 Zilingo Pte. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
14-10-2020 SGT Aadesh Kumar Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
14-10-2020 T. Kavinraj Versus Union of India Represented by its Ministry of Human Resource and Development Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-10-2020 Veenesh Kumar Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
13-10-2020 Emaar Mgf Land Ltd., New Delhi & Another Versus Gurpreet Gill National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-10-2020 Rajiv Saxena Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
13-10-2020 Dr. Akshee Batra Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
12-10-2020 Mahasemam Trust, A Public Trust, Rep. by its Trustee, Dr. Prabu Vairavan Prakasam Versus Union of India, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Finance Department, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-10-2020 Shalam Ali Versus Union of India (Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-10-2020 Naresh Kumar Sinha, Company Secretary, M/s Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Jeevan Bharti, New Delhi & Others Versus Union of India Rep. By The Labour Enforcement Officer Central Tripura West & Another High Court of Gauhati
09-10-2020 Meethelaveetil Kaitheri Muralidharan & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporation Affairs, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-10-2020 New Delhi Municipal Council Versus Hari Ram Tiwari High Court of Delhi
09-10-2020 Chilukuri Prasannanjaneya Reddy Versus Union of India High Court of Andhra Pradesh
09-10-2020 Akul Bhargava & Others Versus Union Public Service Commission & Others High Court of Delhi
09-10-2020 Wing Commander Mallikarjun Gourimath Versus Union of India, Through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
08-10-2020 M/s. Wizard Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Manager, Mumbai National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-10-2020 Mala Sahni Seth Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-10-2020 A. Kumar Versus Financial Intelligence Unit – India, New Delhi & Another Versius Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-10-2020 Ramesh Versus Union of India Represented by its Secretary to Government (Revenue) Government of Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-10-2020 Rikhab Jain Versus M/S. Trackon Couriers Private Limited, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-10-2020 Sapat Khan Versus Union of India Through Intelligence Officer High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
05-10-2020 Parul Majumdar Laskar & Others Versus The Union of India to Be Rep. By The Secy., Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
05-10-2020 Tarun Kanti Chowdhury & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Bayer New Zealand Limited Versus Ministry For Primary Industries Court of Appeal of New Zealand
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M/s. Kashmir Wine & Provision Store Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
01-10-2020 Construction Industry Development Council, New Delhi Versus Arjun Singh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2020 M/s. Harihar Buildspace Pvt. Ltd. G-III, Amar Palace, Panchsheel Square, Dhantoli, Nagpur Versus Union of India Through its Chief Secretary, Ministry of Power, Shramshakti Bhavan, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-09-2020 Lalatendu Nayak & Another Versus Supertech Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-09-2020 M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi Versus Col. B.S. Goraya & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-09-2020 Vinkem Labs Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Perumal & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Vinkem Labs Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Perumal & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Vinkem Labs Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Perumal & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust, Established & Namakkal Represented by Chairman, V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary Cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Vinkem Labs Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Perumal & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 M/s. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi Versus Col. B.S. Goraya National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-09-2020 M/s ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi Versus The Union of India through Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications and IT, Government of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
29-09-2020 Ashok Vishwakarma Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
29-09-2020 Oriental College of Teacher Education, Calicut, Represented by Its Manager Versus The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi High Court of Kerala
28-09-2020 Union of India The General Manager, North East Frontier Railway, Guwahati Versus On The Death of Baneswar Das His Legal Heir Manju Das & Others High Court of Gauhati
25-09-2020 Rhonpal Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus New Delhi Municipal Council & Others High Court of Delhi
25-09-2020 Asha Mukherjee Versus Union of India & others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-09-2020 C.M. Gadha & Another Versus Bar Council of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
23-09-2020 M. Umapathy & Another Versus The Joint Commissioner of Labour-I, (Registrar of Trade Union), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-09-2020 P.S. Dilip Kumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
22-09-2020 M/s. Boxster Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-09-2020 The Visnagar Taluka Co-Operative Purchase & Sales Union Limited (Deleted) Versus District Registrar, Co-Op. Societies High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
21-09-2020 M. Rajalakshmi Versus Union of India Represented by the Secretary to Government Department of Revenue & Disaster Management Govt. of Union Territory of Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Versus & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus M/s. Guptasons Jewellers & Gems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-09-2020 Tvl. Transtonnelstroy Afcons Joint Venture, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager Versus Shanthamma & Another High Court of Karnataka
18-09-2020 Vaibhav Prasad Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
18-09-2020 M/s. Standard Metalloys Private Limited, through its Authorised Signatory Sumit Tripathi Versus Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Mines & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
18-09-2020 Mukul Mittal & Another Versus Union of India Through its Secretary & Another High Court of Delhi
18-09-2020 K. Murugan: Petitioner in W.P (MD). No. 2547/15 T. Velladurai, Petitioner in W.P (MD). No. 2548/15, Versus The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Panchayat Union Office, Alangulam & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-09-2020 Tamil Nadu State Indian Union Muslim League, Represented by its General Secretary, K.A.M. Muhammed Abubacker, Chennai Versus M.G. Dawood Miakhan & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
17-09-2020 Advocate Thoufeek Ahamed Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary (Justice), Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
17-09-2020 Katherine Anne Starr Phillips Versus New Zealand Police Court of Appeal of New Zealand
15-09-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Manager Versus Girija & Another High Court of Karnataka
15-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through The Regional Manager, New Delhi Versus Dinesh Vijay National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-09-2020 Firoz Iqbal Khan Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
14-09-2020 Tuticorin Stevedores' Association, Rep.by its Secretary, Tuticorin Versus The Government of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-09-2020 Dr. Varghese Perayil Versus The Election Commission of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
14-09-2020 Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees Union (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its President, Kanchipuram Versus Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its Senior Manager(Personal & Industrial Relations), Madras Atomic Power Station, Kanchipuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2020 Mohd Nashruddin Khan & Others Versus Union Of India & Others High Court of Delhi
11-09-2020 Syed Mujtaba Athar & Another Versus Union of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting & Others High Court of Delhi
10-09-2020 Pravin Kumar Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
10-09-2020 Raina Begum Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Comm & Secy. to The Govt. of India, Home Deptt., New Delhi-01, India & Others High Court of Gauhati
09-09-2020 Oriental College of Teacher Education, Represented by Its Manager, Calicut Versus The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi High Court of Kerala
09-09-2020 Alankit Assignments Limited Versus Union of India High Court of Delhi
08-09-2020 The Dental Council of India, Aiwan-E-Galib Marg, New Delhi Versus PSR Lakhmi Bhuvaneshwari Preethi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Karaikudi Versus Rani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 Sidharth Vijay Shah Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-09-2020 Ex Jwo Kewal Krishan Vij Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
08-09-2020 S. Jagannatha Rao Versus Air India Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 Badri Narayan Singh & Another Versus The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India, through the Home Secretary North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-09-2020 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Somwati & Others Supreme Court of India
04-09-2020 Dr. Vani Viswanathan Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
04-09-2020 Inder Kumar Raina Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
04-09-2020 R. Poornima & Others Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
03-09-2020 B. Rajesh & Another Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-09-2020 Sandeep Agarwal & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
02-09-2020 All India Union Bank Officer, Staff Association Rep. by its General Secretary, AIBOA, Chennai Versus Brajeshwar Sharma, The Chief General Manager(HR) Union Bank of India, Mumbai High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 M/s Elgi Equipments Ltd., Rep.by its company Secretary, S. Raveendar, Coimbatore Versus M/s Kurichi New Town Development Authority Rep.by its Member Secretary, Kurichi, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 Mohd. Asgar Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
01-09-2020 Hyundai Motor India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Harshad Ramji Chauhan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust Established and Administering, Paavai College of Pharmacy and Research, Rep. by Chairman V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 New Negendra Lorry Transport Versus M/s. Telangana Foods a Government of Telangana Enterprises & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
31-08-2020 M/s. Omaxe Limited, New Delhi & Another Versus Divya Karun & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-08-2020 Rajendra Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi