1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 6453/2021

3. The petitioner, serving as a Major on Short Service Commission in the Intelligence Corps of the respondents Indian Army, has challenged the order dated 10th July, 2020 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.795/2020 whereby the interim prayer of the petitioner seeking reinstatement in service during the pendency of the proceedings before the AFT was rejected. Earlier, the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.20637/2019 (SLP) challenging the order dated 2nd August, 2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.8739/2019 whereby this Court had declined to interfere with the ongoing proceedings of the Summary General Court Martial (SGCM) initiated against the petitioner. The Supreme W.P.(C) 6453/2021 Page 1 of 3 Court, while disposing of the SLP vide order dated 2nd September, 2019 also declined to interfere with the proceedings of the SGCM initiated against the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application in the disposed of SLP seeking quashing of the findings and sentence passed by the SGCM on 9th February, 2020. The said application was disposed of by the Supreme Court vide order dated 19th May, 2020 by observing that the petitioner has an appellate remedy before the AFT and further, requested the AFT decide the petition on priority, if preferred by the petitioner.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the charges on which the SGCM dismissed the petitioner are not punishable offences under the Army Act . It is further contended that either the petitioner should be reinstated in service or in the alternative, the petitioner should be considered for permanent commission.

5. The counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice submits that

(i) there is a delay of one year in filing the present petition; (ii) pleadings are complete in the aforesaid OA and the matter is posted for hearing before the AFT on 2nd September, 2021; (iii) in terms of settled law and various judgments of this Court, interim relief as sought cannot be granted; and, (iv) the petitioner has been out of service from 9th February, 2020 and reinstatement at this stage would cause administrative inconvenience.

6. In our view, no interim relief can be granted at this stage to the petitioner. Granting interim relief of reinstatement to the petitioner at this stage, would tantamount to granting the final relief. If the petitioner finally succeeds in the OA filed by her, she would be entitled to reinstatement as well as consideration for permanent commission. However, if ultimately the OA filed by the petitioner before the AFT is dismissed, the petitioner would be holding public office without any authority which will not be permissible. We are not empowered to pass an interim order, the effect of which cannot be undone at the final stage. In this regard, reference may be made to decisions of this Bench in Rohit Sharma Vs. W.P.(C ) 6453/2021 Page 2 of 3 Union of India MANU/DE/0971/2021 and judgment dated 4th June, 2021 in W.P.(C) No.5871/2021 titled Wg. Cdr. Nidhi Badhani Vs. Union of India .

7. No grounds are made out for interference in the present petition and the same is dismissed. However, we reiterate the request made by the Supreme Court to the AFT to decide the aforesaid OA No.795/2020 filed by the petitioner in an expeditious manner.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AMIT BANSAL, J JULY 14, 2021/'pp' W.P.(C) 6453/2021 Page 3 of 3