Inadvertently explained clerical errors did not justify initiating perjury proceedings.

The applicant sought initiation of perjury proceedings, alleging that affidavits filed by the respondents in connected service proceedings contained false or contradictory statements and suppressed material records concerning his disability, treatment, leave, pay and service entitlements

The respondents objected that many persons named in the M.A. had not been parties to the original O.A. or contempt petition, which had both been disposed of, and denied deliberate misstatement

In response to a direction to clarify payments and a discrepancy in the applicant’s DGEHS card number, certain respondents explained the payments made, stated that the incorrect number was a clerical error, and regretted the mistake

The applicant also referred to a Delhi High Court order reserving liberty to pursue contempt and substantive service claims in the appropriate forum

Whether the material before the Tribunal provided sufficient basis to initiate perjury proceedings against the respondents or other persons named in the M.A.

Whether the explanations concerning the payment records and incorrect DGEHS card number adequately addressed the discrepancies identified by the Tribunal

The Tribunal’s decision rested on the procedural principles that persons who were not parties to the original proceedings could not be proceeded against in the M.A. merely by impleading them where no amendment to the original memo of parties had been sought, and that initiation of perjury proceedings required a sufficient basis in the material before the Tribunal

The order does not identify or apply a specific statutory provision governing perjury.

The High Court’s reliance on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261, and its observations on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over service matters were recounted as background; they were not the basis for deciding the perjury application

The Tribunal noted that the O.A. and contempt petition had already been disposed of and that several persons named in the M.A. had not been parties to those proceedings.

No amendment to the original memo of parties had been sought; their impleadment in the M.A. therefore did not itself justify initiating proceedings against them

As to the specific discrepancies, the respondents clarified the payments, explained the card-number error as inadvertent and clerical, and expressed regret.

They also explained why a sanctioned amount and later claims had not been processed.

In light of those explanations, and the absence of a sufficient basis on the material before it, the Tribunal declined to initiate perjury proceedings

It found insufficient basis to proceed against the persons named in the application and made no order as to costs