ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, KOCHI, SITTING CIRCUIT BENCH AT
PARA REGIMENTAL TRAINING CENTRE, BANGALORE
O A NOS.127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135,136, 137, 138,
139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150,
151, 152, 153 and 154 of 2013
TUESDAY, THE 4th DAY OF MARCH 2014/13th PHALGUNA, 1935
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHRIKANT TRIPATHI, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE VICE ADMIRAL M.P.MURALIDHARAN,AVSM & BAR, NM, MEMBER (A)
O.A.No.127 of 2103
APPLICANT:
NO.2809673K EX-RECRUIT/CHEF TILBIR DARGEE, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O.SHRI DARGEE, AT: CHEHEMI, PO-ASEEWA CHAURA, THE-TULOLUM PE3AK & CHEHEMI, DISTT-GULUNI, WEST NEPAL.
BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH C.R.
versus
RESPONDENTS:
1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE(ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HQRS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK. NEW DELHI – 110001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE 590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS) RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE -590 009.
BY ADV. SRI. K.M.JAMALUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL. 2 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
O.A.NO.128 OF 2013:-
APPLICANT:-
NO.2809675P EX-RECRUIT MAN BAHADUR B.K, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI BAHADUR, VILL: TALLO LAMAI BRATHAW, P O- GALKOT HATIYA, TEHSIL-DAHULAGARI, DISTT-BAGLUNG, NEPAL.
BY ADV.SRI.C.R.RAMESH versus
RESPONDENTS:-
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HEADQUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTALCENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE-590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS), RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE-590 009.
BY ADV.SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
O.A.NO.129 OF 2013
APPLICANT:-
1. NO.2809755M EX-RECRUIT BISEN DAMESHWAR LOKACHAND, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFRANTRY, S/O SHRI LOKACHAND BISEN, PO/AT:SEJGAAON, THEHSIL-TIRODA, DISTT-GONDIA, MAHARASHTRA STATE, PIN-441614.
BY ADV.SRI.C.R.RAMESH 3 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
Versus
RESPONDENTS:-
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HEADQUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTALCENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE-590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS), RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE-590 009.
BY ADV.SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
O.A.NO.130 OF 2013:-
APPLICANT:-
NO.2809760X EX-RECRUIT KADAM SUSHANT SURYAKANT, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI SURYAKANT, VILL:KASAI, TAL-KHED, DIST—RATNAGIRI, MAHARASHTRA STATE, PIN-415 718.
BY ADV.SRI.C.R.RAMESH
Versus
RESPONDENTS:-
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HEADQUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 4 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTALCENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE-590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS), RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE-590 009.
BY ADV.SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
O.A.No.131 of 2013:
APPLICANT:
NO.2809767F EX-RECRUIT KHAVANEWADKAR MARUTI RAMCHANDRA, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O.SHRI.RAMACHANDRA, PO/AT:KALKUNDRI, THEHSIL-CHANGAD, DISTT-KOLHAPUR, MAHARASTRA STATE – PIN 416 508.
BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH C.R.
Versus
RESPONDENTS:
1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE(ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HQRS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE 590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS) RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE -590 009.
BY ADV. SRI. K.M.JAMLUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL. 5 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
O.A.NO.132 OF 2013:
APPLICANT:
NO.2809771K, EX-RECRUIT SHIRAHATTI BAHUBALI MAHAVIR, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI MAHAVIR, VILL & POST: TAKALI, TEH-SHIROL, DISTT-KOLHAPUR MAHARASTRA STATE – PIN 416 108.
BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH C.R.
Versus
RESPONDENTS:
1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HQRS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE - 590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS) RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE -590 009.
BY ADV. SRI. K.M.JAMLUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL.
O.A.NO.133 OF 2013:
APPLICANT:
NO.2809777L EX-RECRUIT BOGAR UMESH PRAKASH, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI PRAKASH, PO/AT : KHEBWADE, THEHSIL-KARVEER, DISTT-KOLHAPUR, MAHARASTHRA STATE – PIN 416 221.
BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH C.R. 6 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
Versus RESPONDENTS:
1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE(ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HQRS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE 590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS) RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE -590 009.
BY ADV. SRI. K.M.JAMLUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL.
O.A.NO.134 OF 2013:
APPLICANT:
NO.2809782W EX-RECRUIT /SEPOY RAHUL VILAS SHINDE, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI VILAS, PO/AT : NIPANI, TALUK:CHIKKODI, DISTT-BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – PIN 591 237.
BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH C.R.
Versus
RESPONDENTS:
1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HQRS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110001. 7 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE 590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS) RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE -590 009.
BY ADV. SRI. K.M.JAMLUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL.
O.A.NO.135 OF 2013:
APPLICANT:
NO.2809785K EX-RECRUIT NITIN SADANAND SHELAR, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI SADANAND M SHELAR, PO/AT: JALALPUR, THEHSIL-RAIBAG, DISTT-BELGAUM, MAHARASTHRA STATE – PIN 591 317
BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH C.R.
Versus
RESPONDENTS:
1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HQRS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE 590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS) RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE -590 009.
BY ADV. SRI. K.M.JAMLUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL. 8 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
O.A.NO.136 OF 2013
APPLICANT:
NO.2809791X EX-RECRUIT CHAVAN SACHIN MUGUTRAO, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI MUGUT RAO, PO/AT : KUMTHE, THEHSIL-K0REGAON, DISTT- SATARA, MAHARASTRA STATE – PIN 415 501.
BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH C.R.
Versus
RESPONDENTS:
1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HQRS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE 590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS) RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE -590 009.
BY ADV. SRI. K.M.JAMLUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL.
O.A.NO.137 OF 2013
APPLICANT:
NO.2809795N EX-RECRUIT PATIL RANJIT VITHOBA, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI VITHOBA, PO/AT : HOUSUR, THEHSIL-CHANDGAD, DISTT-KOLHAPUR, MAHARASTRA STATE – PIN 416 526.
BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH C.R. 9 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
Versus
RESPONDENTS:
1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HQRS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE 590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS) RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE -590 009.
BY ADV. SRI. K.M.JAMLUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL.
O.A.NO.138 OF 2013
APPLICANT:
NO.2809780L EX-RECRUIT SANTHOSH AKKANNAVAR, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI BASAPPA AKKANNAVAR, PO/AT : BADAL ANKALGI THEHSIL-BELGAUM, DISTT-BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE- PIN 591 109.
BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH C.R.
Versus
RESPONDENTS:
1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HQRS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110001. 10 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE 590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS) RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE -590 009.
BY ADV. SRI. K.M.JAMLUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL.
O.A.NO.139 OF 2013
APPLICANT:
NO.2809798F EX-RECRUIT BALKRISHNA NAIK, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI YALLAPPA NAIK, PO/AT: HINDALGA, THEHSIL-BELGAUM, DISTT-BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – PIN 591 108.
BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH C.R.
Versus
RESPONDENTS:
1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HQRS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE 590 009. 11 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS) RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE -590 009.
BY ADV. SRI. K.M.JAMLUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL.
O.A.NO.140 OF 2013
APPLICANT:
NO.2809747 N EX-RECRUIT/CHEF BHARAT SINGH, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI DAULAT SINGH, VILL.. BISRAKHET, POST OFFICE-MEHAL CHOURI, THE-GAIR SAIN, DISTT-CHAMOLI, UTTARAKHAND, PIN – 246 431.
BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH. C.R.
Versus
RESPONDENTS: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS), RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.
BY ADV.SHRI K.M.JAMALUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL.
12 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
O.A.NO.141 OF 2013
APPLICANT:
NO.2809800 N EX-RECRUIT PATIL KIRAN MARUTI, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI MARUTI, VILL.. SAROLI, POST – NINGUDAGE, THEHSIL-AJAARA, DISTT-KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA STATE - PIN – 416 526.
BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH. C.R.
versus
RESPONDENTS: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ( ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS), RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.
BY ADV.SHRI K.M.JAMALUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSL.
O.A.NO.142 OF 2013
APPLICANT:
NO.2809807 X EX-RECRUIT KHOT SUNIL RAMCHANDRA, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI RAMCHANDRA KHOT, PO/AT: MHASARANG, THEHSIL-BHUDARAGAD, DISTT-KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA STATE - PIN – 416 209.
BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH. C.R.
versus 13 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
RESPONDENTS: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ( ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS), RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.
BY ADV.SHRI K.M.JAMALUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL.
O.A.NO.143 OF 2013
APPLICANT:
NO.2809818 K EX-RECRUIT SANTHOSH BADAKUNDRI, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI DYAMAPPA BADAKUNDRI, PO/AT: GOKAK FALLS, THEHSIL-GOKAK, DISTT- BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE - PIN – 591 308.
BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH. C.R.
versus
RESPONDENTS: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ( ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.
14 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS), RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.
BY ADV.SHRI K.M.JAMALUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL.
O.A.NO.144 OF 2013
APPLICANT:
NO.2809819 M X EX-RECRUIT MISAL SHARAD MADHUKAR, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI MADHUKAR MISAL, PO/AT:: KORTI, THEHSIL- KARMALA, DISTT-SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA STATE - PIN – 413 201.
BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH. C.R.
versus
RESPONDENTS: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ( ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS), RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.
BY ADV.SHRI K.M.JAMALUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL.
O.A.NO.145 OF 2013
APPLICANT:
NO.2809823 P EX-RECRUIT ROSHAN LALASAHEB DESAI, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI LALASAHEB DESAI, VILL:- HEWALE, PO-MEDHE, THEHSIL- DODAMARG, DISTT- SINDHUDURG, MAHARASHTRA STATE - PIN – 416 559.
BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH. C.R. 15 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
versus
RESPONDENTS: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ( ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS), RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.
BY ADV.SHRI K.M.JAMALUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL.
O.A.NO.146 OF 2013
APPLICANT:
NO.2809841 X EX-RECRUIT MAGAR SUDHIR MARUTI, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI MARUTI GANAPATI MAGAR, VILL:- VIKASAWADI, POST: NERALI, THEHSIL- KARAVIR, DISTT-KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA STATE - PIN – 416 234.
BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH. C.R.
versus
RESPONDENTS: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ( ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009. 16 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS), RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.
BY ADV.SHRI K.M.JAMALUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL.
O.A.NO.147 OF 2013
APPLICANT:
NO.2809850 Y EX-RECRUIT CHOTE SANDIP BABURAV, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI BABURAV CHOTHE, VILL:- LINGNOOR, THEHSIL- GADHINGLAJ, DISTT-KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA STATE - PIN – 416 502.
BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH. C.R. versus
RESPONDENTS: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ( ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS), RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.
BY ADV.SHRI K.M.JAMALUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL.
O.A.NO.148 OF 2013
APPLICANT:
NO.2809891 H EX-RECRUIT/CHEF RAKESH CHANDRA SINGH, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI KHUSHAL SINGH, VILL:: KHINSAR, POST – RAMRATALA, THEHSIL- GAIRSAN, DISTT- CHAMOLI, UTTARAKHAND, PIN – 246 428.
BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH. C.R. 17 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
versus
RESPONDENTS: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ( ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS), RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.
BY ADV.SHRI K.M.JAMALUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL.
O.A.NO.149 OF 2013
APPLICANT:
NO.2809893 N EX-RECRUIT DESHPANDE GAJANAN ARUN, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI ARUN, VILL:- LAKIKATTE, POST – SHIVANAGE, THEHSIL- CHANDGAD, DISTT-KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA STATE - PIN – 416 507.
BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH. C.R.
versus
RESPONDENTS: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ( ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009. 18 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS), RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.
BY ADV.SHRI K.M.JAMALUDHEEN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL.
O.A.NO.150 OF 2013
APPLICANT:
NO.2809897 K EX-RECRUIT PATIL MAYUR KASHINATH, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI KASHINATH, VILL & POST : SAINIK TAKALI, THEHSIL- SHIROL, DISTT-KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA STATE - PIN – 416 108.
BY ADV. SRI. RAMESH. C.R.
versus
RESPONDENTS: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ( ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS), RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.
BY ADV.SHRI S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL. 19 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
O.A.NO.151 OF 2013:-
APPLICANT:-
NO.2809903 M EX-RECRUIT MORE SAINATH GANPAT, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI GANPAT, PO/AT: KARI, THEHSIL-SATARA, DISTT-SATARA, MAHARASHTRA STATE, PIN-415 013.
BY ADV.SRI.C.R.RAMESH
Versus
RESPONDENTS:-
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HEADQUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTALCENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE-590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS), RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE-590 009.
BY ADV.SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL 20 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
O.A.NO.152 OF 2013:- APPLICANT:-
NO.2809926 N EX RECRUIT GAVAS ANAND BAPU, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI BAPU, PO/AT: GAVAS ANAND BAPU, THEHSIL-SAWANTWADI, DISTT-SINDHUDURG, MAHARASHTRA STATE, PIN-416 511.
BY ADV.SRI.C.R.RAMESH
RESPONDENTS:-
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HEADQUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTALCENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE-590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS), RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE-590 009.
BY ADV.SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
O.A.NO.153 OF 2013: APPLICANT:- NO.2809974 N EX-RECRUIT INGALE RAMCHANDRA BALU, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI BALU, PO/AT: GORAMBE, THEHSIL-KAGAL, DISTT-KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA STATE, PIN-416 216.
BY ADV.SRI.C.R.RAMESH
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:-
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 21 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HEADQUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTALCENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE-590 009.
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS), RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE-590 009.
BY ADV.SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
O.A.NO.154 OF 2013:
APPLICANT:-
NO.2809996 M EX-RECRUIT SHYAM MADIVALKAR, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O SHRI YALLAPPA, PO/AT:PIRANWADI, THEHSIL-BELGAUM, DISTT-BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE, PIN-590 014.
BY ADV.SRI.C.R.RAMESH
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:-
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HEADQUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE-590 009..
4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS), RECORDS, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE-590 009.
BY ADV.SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL 22 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
O R D E R
JUSTICE SHRIKANT TRIPATHI, MEMBER (J):
1. Heard the counsel for the parities and perused the record.
2. The reply statement filed by the counsel for the respondents in O.A.No.127 of 2013 is taken on record after condoning the delay. M.A.No.162 of 2014 is accordingly disposed of.
3. Mr.K.M.Jamaludheen appearing for the respondents submitted that whatever points have been pleaded in the aforesaid reply statement will be taken as defence in other connected matters, so he would not file any other reply statement. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, vide the order dated 10th February, 2014 all the matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
23 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
4. By these Original Applications (O.A.Nos.127 of
2013 to O.A.No.154 of 2013) the applicants have challenged their respective dismissal on the ground that they were dismissed from the service without any proper inquiry.
O.A.No.127 of 2013:
5. The applicants, namely Tilbir Dargee
No. 2809673K, Man Bahadur B.K., No. 2809675P, Bisen
Dameshwar Lokachand No. 2809755M, Kadam Sushant
Suryakant No. 2809760X, Khavanewadkar Maruti
Ramchandra No. 2809767F, Shirahatti Bahubali Mahavir
No. 2809771K, Bogar Umesh Prakash No. 2809777L,
Shinde Rahul Vilas No. 2809782W, Nitin Sadanand
Shelar No. 2809785K, Chavan Sachin Mugutrao 24 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
No. 2809791X, Patil Ranjit Vithoba No. 2809795N, Santosh
Akkannavar No. 2809780L, Balkrishna Naik No. 2809798F,
Bharat Singh No. 2809747N, Patil Kiran Maruti No. 2809800N,
Khot Sunil Ramchandra No. 2809807X, Santhosh Badakundri
No. 2809818K, Misal Sharad Madhukar No. 2809819M, Roshan
Lalasaheb Desai No. 2809823P, Magar Sudhir Maruti No.
2809841X, Chothe Sandip Baburav No. 2809850Y, Rakesh
Chandra Singh No. 2809891H, Deshpande Gajanan Arun No.
2809893N, Patil Mayur Kashinath No. 2809897K, More Sainath
Ganapat No. 2809903M, Gavas Anand Bapu No. 2809926N,
Ingale Ramchandra Balu No. 2809974N and Shyam Madivalkar
No. 2809996M were recruited in the Maratha Light Infantry
Regiment after selection in accordance with the rules and orders issued from time to time. They joined for Recruits’ training at the Training Centre Maratha Light Infantry,
Belgaum. Before the Attestation Parade of the applicants was to be held, complaints were received against them, so it was postponed. They were accordingly kept in Army
Service without attestation as Soldiers. The applicants 25 OA.127/2013 & connected cases have alleged that they were served with the show cause notices on 01st May 2013 which disclosed the fact that they got their recruitment in the Indian Army under the sports quota without producing any valid sports’ document/certificate
(National/State level), so their recruitments were not in accordance with the instructions issued in this behalf. They were, therefore, called upon to show cause by the 04th of May
2013 why they be not dismissed from the service under Army
Act Section 20 read with Army Rule 17 and Integrated HQ MoD
(Army) Letter No.6210/Rtg 5 (OR)(A) dated 05th March 2004.
The applicants submitted their replies to the show causes notice on 04th May 2013. In their respective replies, the applicants stated that they had not opted for their recruitments under the sports quota nor were recruited in that quota. They further stated that their recruitments to the Army were on merit basis in open category. They next stated that they had not claimed themselves as the sports persons of National or
State level. They, however, claimed that they were very good in sports but could not excel at State/National level due to 26 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
their poor financial condition. After receiving the replies, the respondents issued the discharge certificate on 09th May 2013 dismissing all the applicants from the Army service.
6. Mr. Ramesh C.R. appearing for the applicants submitted that when the applicants had denied that they had been recruited to the Indian Army under Sports quota and made specific assertions to that effect in the replies submitted against the show cause notice, it was incumbent upon the respondents to consider the replies and if necessary, to hold an inquiry and find out the truth. But they, instead of doing anything towards finding the truth, mechanically proceeded to dismiss the applicants from the Army service. Even the discharge certificates issued to the applicants had not disclosed any reasons as to why the stands taken by the applicants were not acceptable to the respondents. Mr. Ramesh next contended that the result of having passed the Common
Entrance Examination on 25 October 2009, was communicated 27 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
to all the applicants in writing and they were required to produce only the following original documents on reporting to
Centre:-
(a) Board Certificate and Mark Sheet. (b) School leaving certificate/Transfer Certificate/ Bonafide certificate. (c) Caste certificate issued by Tahsildar/DM/SDM
(d) Domicile certificate issued by Tahsildar/DM/SDM (c) Dependent/Relationship certificate of servicemen/Ex-servicemen/Ward of widows issued by Records Officer only duly mentioned Service No., Rank, Name and Appt of signing authority. (d) Character certificate issued by Village Sarpanch/Police Patil with affixing the family photographs of all members of the candidate and not more than six months old. (e) Two sets of Photostat copies of original certificates duly attested.
7. By the aforesaid intimation, none of the applicants was required to furnish any certificate pertaining to sports. He 28 OA.127/2013 & connected cases next contended that if the applicants had taken their recruitments to the Indian Army under the Sports quota, the result of common entrance examination conveyed to the applicants, whereby the aforesaid documents were demanded from them, would have demanded certificates/documents relating to sports also. So, the aforesaid communication made to each of the applicants clearly established that they had not been recruited under the Sports quota.
8. Mr. K.M. Jamaludheen, on the other hand, submitted that the applicants in O.A.Nos. 127 and 128 of 2013 were Nepali citizens and as such were not qualified to be recruited in the Indian Army. In this connection Mr. Ramesh
C.R. submitted that even Nepali citizens were eligible for recruitment to the Indian Army and there was no such bar. In this connection he referred to Section 11 of the Army Act, which reads as follows: 29 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
“S.11. Ineligibility of aliens for enrolment. – No person who is not a citizen of India shall, except with the consent of the Central Government signified in writing, be enrolled in the regular Army:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall bar the enrolment of the subjects of Nepal in the regular Army.”
9. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the recruitment of the applicants (O.A.No. 127 and 128 of 2013) could not be said to be illegal only on the ground that they are
Nepali citizens.
10. Mr. K.M. Jamaludheen next contended that all the applicants had been recruited to the Indian Army under the
Sports quota, which could not be done without any proper and valid sports certificate/document disclosing their achievements in Sports of a State/the National level, so the respondents were justified in issuing show cause notices to the applicants and dismissing them from the Army Service under Section 30 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
20(3) of the Army Act read with Army Rule 17.
Mr. Jamaludheen further contended that attestations of the applicants were denied for want of sports certificate and as such they were not justified in challenging the denial of attestation after a gap of several years.
11. We have considered rival submissions and perused the record.
12. Section 20 of the Army Act provides for dismissal, removal or reduction by the Chief of the Army Staff and by other officers. Subsection(3) of section 20 being relevant in the present case may be reproduced as follows:
“20. Dismissal, removal or reduction by the Chief of the Army Staff and by other officers.
(1) xxx xxx xxx 31 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
(2) xxx xxx xxx (3) An officer having power not less than a brigadier or equivalent commander or any prescribed officer may dismiss or remove from the service any person serving under his command other than an officer or a junior commissioned officer.”...
13. Section 20(3) of the Army Act as extracted above, empowers an officer having the rank of Brigadier or equivalent
Commander or any other officer as prescribed, to dismiss or remove from service any person under his command, but no such power can be exercised against an Officer or a Junior
Commissioned Officer. Subsection (7) of section 20 further provides as to how the power of dismissal and removal is to be exercised by the Chief of the Army Staff and other officers, according to which, the exercise of any power under section 20 shall be subject to the rules and regulations and provisions of the Act. Rule 17 of the Army Rules, 1954 seems to have been framed to provide for the procedure as to how the power of dismissal or removal under section 20 of the Army Act is to be 32 OA.127/2013 & connected cases exercised. In other words, no dismissal or removal from service can be done under Army Act section 20 without due compliance of the requirements of the provisions of Army Rule
17. The provisions of Army Rule 17 being relevant may be reproduced as follows:
“Dismissal or removal by Chief of the Army Staff and by other officers. —
Save in the case where a person is dismissed or removed from service on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction by a criminal court or a court-martial, no person shall be dismissed or removed under sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 20; unless he has been informed of the particulars of the cause of action against him and allowed reasonable time to state in writing any reasons he may have to urge against his dismissal or removal from the service:
Provided that if in the opinion of the officer competent to order the dismissal or removal,it is not expedient or reasonably practicable to comply with the 33 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
provisions of this rule, he may after certifying to that effect, order the dismissal or removal without complying with the procedure set out in this rule. All cases of dismissal or removal under this rule where the prescribed procedure has not been complied with shall be reported to the Central Government”
14. In our view, the compliance of the Army Rule 17 is mandatory in nature. It has twin purposes, firstly, to provide an opportunity to the person concerned, to explain the particulars of the cause of action made against him, and to put forth the relevant materials, if any, for not only controverting the particulars of the cause of action but also for showing that the intended dismissal or removal from service is unwarranted in law and secondly to check the arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power by the Authorities and to ensure fairness on their part. When the rule mandatorily requires providing of such opportunity to the delinquent army personnel, it is also inbuilt therein that the authority, who is to consider the reasons furnished by the 34 OA.127/2013 & connected cases delinquent army personnel, must apply his mind to the facts of the case and give due consideration to the explanations of the delinquent and then pass a reasoned order. Mere providing of an opportunity to the delinquent to furnish reasons without giving due consideration to the reasons so furnished, would serve no purpose in providing the show cause opportunity.
Therefore, what is required by Rule 17 of the Army Rules 1954 is not only to inform the particulars of the cause of action
(allegations) with certainty and without any ambiguity and vagueness to the delinquent so as to enable him to furnish reasons against the proposed action, if any, but also requires the authority concerned to give due consideration to the reasons so furnished and pass a speaking order. But this procedure is not required to be observed in a case where the dismissal or removal is made on the ground of conduct which has led to conviction of the person concerned by a Criminal
Court or Court Martial. 35 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
15. There is one more exception to the aforesaid principles and that is provided in the proviso to Army Rule 17, which empowers the competent officer to dispense with the requirement of the provisions of Rule 17, if he forms the opinion that it is not expedient or reasonably practicable to comply with provisions of Rule 17 and certifies to that effect.
To put it otherwise, a dismissal or removal from service can be made without due compliance of the Army Rule 17, if the competent authority records the opinion that the compliance of the said Rule is not expedient or reasonably practicable. But, in all such matters a report must be sent to the Central
Government.
16. What is apparent from the aforesaid discussions, is that the Army Rule 17 has been brought on the statute book to ensure fairness in the matter of dismissal or removal of a person from the Army service and to check arbitrary exercise of the powers by the Authorities. In our view, no dismissal 36 OA.127/2013 & connected cases made in utter violation of the aforesaid principle can be upheld judicially.
17. Besides looking into the aforesaid provisions of
Army Rule 17, we would like to refer to certain important decisions of the Apex Court relating to the principles of natural justice.
18. In the matter of S.N.Mukherjee vs. Union of
India, (1990) 4 SCC 594, a Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court interalia examined the question of necessity of observing the principles of natural justice and recording of reasons by the authority exercising the quasi judicial functions, and held that the object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The requirement of recording reasons for its decision, by an administrative authority exercising quasi judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring the degree of fairness in the process of decision making. Accordingly, the Apex Court held that the 37 OA.127/2013 & connected cases requirement to record reasons can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities.
19. In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth
Board of Works, (1963) 143 ER 414, the principle was thus stated:
"Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence. “Adam'' says God, “where art thou has thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that though should not eat''.
20. It is, therefore, well settled that the adherence to principles of natural justice is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled.
The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as 38 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
'audi alteram partem' rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated and non-est. The other limb of the principles of natural justice is recording of reasons by the authority exercising the quasi judicial functions or administrative functions involving civil consequences. An order disclosing no reason apparently violates the principles of natural justice.
21. Apart from the aforesaid principles, the Apex
Court has, in several decisions, laid down exceptions to the principle of natural justice for being applied in appropriate cases. One of the exceptions is the doctrine of “useless formality” as propounded in M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India, 39 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
(1999)6 SCC 237 and subsequently applied and followed in
Aligarh Muslim University vs. Mansoor Ali Khan, (2000)7
SCC 529 and also in few other decisions. The said doctrine ordinarily applies to the cases of admitted or indisputable facts leading only to one conclusion, because in such matters the Apex Court found that observance of the principle of natural justice would be merely “useless formality” serving no useful purpose. It was also held that the application of the doctrine depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case and cannot be applied in a straight jacket manner. The second exception is the “doctrine of prejudice” and according to that doctrine, prejudice also need to be proved in addition to breach of natural justice. The principle prejudice was propounded in K.L.Tripathi v. State Bank of India,
(1984)1 SCC 43. In that case the Apex Court held that not mere violation of natural justice but also de facto prejudice has to be proved. In some of the decisions the Apex Court held that the breach of the principles of natural justice was in itself prejudice, so no other de facto prejudice needed to be proved. 40 OA.127/2013 & connected cases
In the matter of State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K.Sharma,
(1996)3 SCC 364, the Apex Court elaborated the principle of
“prejudice” after taking into consideration the Constitution
Bench decision of the Apex Court in Managing Director,
ECIL vs. B.Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 and held that a distinction must be made between “no opportunity” and “no adequate opportunity”. The Apex Court further proceeded to elaborate the theory to the effect that in cases of “no notice” or “no hearing”, the order passed would undoubtedly be invalid and one may call the order as void or nullity. But in the matter of “no adequate hearing” or “no fair hearing”, the effect of violation of the natural justice has to be examined from the stand point of prejudice.
22. The question involved in all these matters, in our view, is whether the applicants had claimed their recruitments to the Indian Army under the sports quota? If the answer was in the affirmative, it was open to the 41 OA.127/2013 & connected cases respondents to dismiss them from the service. If the answer was in the negative, the dismissal of the applicants was not in any way proper and legal. No doubt, the respondents had power under Army Act Section 20 read with Army Rule 17 to dismiss the applicants from the Army service after serving show cause notices on them. But when they served the notices and called upon them to explain as to why their services be not dismissed and in reply thereto, they submitted that they had not claimed their recruitments to the Army under the sports quota and further stated that they had been recruited based on their passing exams and meeting all standards during recruitment rally held, it was mandatory duty of the authority taking decision in the matters to find out as to whether the applicants had been recruited to the Indian Army in sports quota or not. The applicants’ contention that they had not been recruited to the Indian
Army in sports quota finds corroboration from the intimation given to each of them, whereby they were required to furnish certain certificates and testimonials and in that 42 OA.127/2013 & connected cases intimation nothing was stated as to the requirement of any sports certificate. In view of this specific case set up by the applicants by way of reply given to the show cause notices, it was quite improper to discharge/dismiss them from service without assigning any reason. The discharge certificates filed by the applicants do not disclose any reason as to how the respondents arrived at the conclusion that the applicants had sought for their recruitment to the Indian Army under the sports quota. In absence of any reason on the main issue involved in each case, the dismissal orders, which were rendered in a slip shod manner cannot be upheld.
23. In para 9 of the reply statement, the respondents have set up the case that no Court of Inquiry was necessary in the matter, but in para 10 of the reply statement they have made a reference with regard to holding of a Court of Inquiry. During the course of hearing, Mr.K.M. Jamaludheen informed that the Court of Inquiry was held against the officers who had recruited the applicants. But he very frankly 43 OA.127/2013 & connected cases conceded that no Court of Inquiry was held against the applicants nor they had any representation or any opportunity of hearing in that inquiry.
24. It is true that for invoking the provisions of Section
20 of the Army Act and Army Rule 17 no Court of Inquiry is necessary, but when the charges leveled against the applicants were denied by them to the effect that they had not claimed their recruitments under the sports quota it was desirable to find out the truth with regard to the question as to whether they had claimed their recruitments under the sports quota or not. If they had not so claimed and any officer of the Army committed the mistake, they ought not to have been penalised due to the mistake committed by the officer making the recruitment. While considering the replies of the applicants, the respondents were expected to look into this aspect of the matter also before passing any final order, but they acted mechanically in dismissing the applicants from the Army service even without disclosing any reason in the 44 OA.127/2013 & connected cases discharge order passed against each applicant, which cannot be upheld judicially.
25. The omission on the part of the respondents to give due consideration to the replies of the applicants and pass appropriate speaking order, has resulted in causing grave prejudice to the rights of the applicants. Apart from this, the doctrine of ‘useless formality’ was also not attracted due to the simple reason that the allegations made against the applicants were not undisputed.
26. Before concluding the matters, we would like to indicate the implication of Section 122(4) of the Army Act in the present matters. Normally the rule of limitation provided in Army Act section 122(4) is not applicable in respect of proceedings under the Army Act section 20 read with Army
Rule 17. But the object behind the enactment of the aforesaid sub-section (4) needs to be kept in mind while dealing with a case of fraudulent enrolment in terms of of the Army Act 45 OA.127/2013 & connected cases section 20, read with Army rule 17. The object behind the said sub-section (4) is, obviously, to allow the person, who got his fraudulent enrolment in the Army, to continue in service of the
Army notwithstanding the fraudulent enrolment, if his service in the Army has continuously been exemplary for not less than 3 years. Army Act Section 122(4) seems to accord protection to all those who had been recruited in a fraudulent manner, but after the recruitment they continued not only in service continuously for not less than three years but had also given service performance in an exemplary manner. In such matters, whatever malpractices had been done during the recruitment, can be treated to be washed off due to the exemplary performance of the candidate. Is it feasible and proper to dismiss a person who obtained his enrolment in a fraudulent manner but remained in service continuously for not less than three years in an exemplary manner, is the paramount question, which has to be kept in mind by the officer or authority while considering a case of fraudulent enrolment for passing an order under Army Act Section 20 46 OA.127/2013 & connected cases read with Army Rule 17. The respondents had not considered the cases of the applicants in the backdrop of the aforesaid principles before dismissing them from the Army Service.
27. In our view, therefore, all the Original Applications deserve to be allowed.
28. The Original Applications are allowed. The impugned dismissal/discharge orders passed against the applicants are quashed. The respondents are directed to re-instate the applicants in service with the benefit of back pay and allowances. It will, however, be open to the respondents to proceed afresh against the applicants in accordance with law.
29. There will be no order as to costs.
30. Inform the parties.
31. Let a copy of this order be placed on the file of the connected cases.
Sd/- Sd/-
VICE ADMIRAL M.P. MURALIDHARAN, JUSTICE SHRIKANT TRIPATHI, MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) (true copy) an. Prl.Pvt.Secretary