ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
This Writ Petition is filed by the applicant in O.A.No.20 of 2013 on the file of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi. The Tribunal having dismissed the Original Application by Ext.P6 order, this Writ Petition is filed.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents.
3. The petitioner was a Steward in the Army. He proceeded on leave from 22/11/2005 to 11/12/2005. He did not report back for duty on expiry of the leave. Consequently a court of enquiry was held and he was declared as a 'deserter'. Long thereafter on 23/3/2010 he voluntarily appeared at the Depot Battalion MEG & Centre, Bangalore. He was tried by a summary court martial for an offence under Section 39(b) of the Army Act, for overstaying of leave granted W.P.(AFT).No.6 of 2014 2 to him and also for offence under Section 54(b) for losing by neglect the property of Government issued to him for use.
4. Ext.P1 contains the memo of charges. Proceedings show that the petitioner pleaded guilty of the charges and confessed that he was willing to accept any punishment. He also declined to produce any witness in his defence. As a result he was removed from service by order dated 10th July, 2010. It was challenging this order and seeking his reinstatement in service, Original Application was filed. Ext.P6 is the order passed by the Tribunal, which shows each one of the contentions raised by the petitioner has been answered and negatived by it.
5. In addition to the contentions that are urged before the Tribunal which are rightly answered in the impugned order the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the charge was altered by the court martial and that the alteration of the charge is illegal. The learned counsel also contended that the petitioner had to remain absent basically on account of coercion and undue influence of his superiors and also that W.P.(AFT).No.6 of 2014 3 he was laid up during the said period. Insofar as the 1st and 2nd factual contentions urged before us are concerned, they are not seen urged before the Tribunal and we therefore decline to entertain those contentions. Insofar as the sickness now urged by the petitioner is concerned, that question could be considered, only if the petitioner had produced valid certificates for accepting his case and justifying his absence for almost five years. On this account there was total failure on the side of the petitioner and therefore the Tribunal was fully justified in declining to accept the case.
6. On an overall consideration of the issue and in view of the findings in Ext.P6 order passed by the Tribunal, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in rejecting the Original Application.
The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE skj ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE