ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, KOCHI

SITTING CIRCUIT BENCH AT REGIMENTAL TRAINING CENTRE, BANGALORE

O.A.NOS.174, 175, 176, 177 & 178 OF 2013.

WEDNESDAY, 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014/14TH DAY OF PHALGUNA, 1935

CORAM

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHRIKANT TRIPATHI, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE VICE ADMIRAL M.P.MURALILDHARAN, AVSM & BAR, NM,MEMBER(A)

APPLICANT:

OA NO. 174 OF 2013

NO. 2809779W EX-RECRUIT PATIL RANAJEET HARI, AGED 26 YEARS, , S/O. SHRI. HARI S PATIL, AT: NAVALI, P.O. DEVALI, TEHSIL PANHALLA, DIST., MAHARASTRA STATE, PIN 416 213.

BY ADV. SHRI. RAMESH C.R. VS

RESPONDENTS

1. THE UNION OF , THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY) SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001.

2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, DHQ P.O., INTEGRATED HQRS. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001.

3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, , STATE – 590 009. 2

4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS) THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.

BY ADV. SHRI. TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM, CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL

OA NO. 175 OF 2013 APPLICANT

No. 2809827L EX-RECRUIT VIKAS PUNDLIK CHAVAN, AGED 23 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O. SHRI.PUNDLIK CHAVAN, H.NO. 602 JYOTI NAGAR, PO/AT KANGRALI, THEHSIL-BELGAUM, DIST. BELGAUM KARNATAKA STATE, PIN – 590 010.

BY ADV. SHRI. RAMESH C.R.

VS.

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 HQRS. 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) THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.

BY ADV. SHRI. TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM, CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL 3

O.A.NO.176 OF 2013 APPLICANT

NO. 2809915F EX-RECRUIT PATIL SHANKAR, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O.SHRI.SHANKAR PO/AT TISANGI, THEHSIL-KAVATHEMAHANKAL DIST. SANGLI, MAHARASTRA STATE – PIN 416 405. BY ADV. SHRI. RAMESH C.R.

VS

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 HQRS. 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) THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.

BY ADV. SHRI. TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM, CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL

O.A.NO. 177 OF 2013 APPLICANT

NO.2809959Y EX-RECRUIT DORUGADE SANTHOSH RAMCHANDRA, AGED 24 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O. SHRI. RAMCHANDRA VILL : TAKEWADI, POST: MOMEWADI, THEHSIL-GADHINGLAJ, DIST.KOLHAPUR, STATE, PIN 416 220.

BY ADV.SRI.RAMESH.C.R. 4

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 HQRS. 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) THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.

BY ADV. SHRI. TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM, CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL

O.A.No.178 of 2013:

No.2809749Y EX RECRUIT SANTOSH VITHAL CHOUGULE, AGED 25 YEARS, MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, S/O.SHRI VITHAL CHOUGULE, HOUSE NO.739, AT-RAMDEV GALLI, P.O.KANGRALI, THEH-BELGAUM, DIST.BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE, PIN 590 010.

BY ADV.SRI.RAMESH.C.R.

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 HQRS. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001. 5

3. THE COMMANDANT, THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, REGIMENTAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.

4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS) THE MARATHA LIGHT INFANTRY, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA STATE – 590 009.

BY ADV. SHRI. TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM, CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL

O R D E R

JUSTICE SHRIKANT TRIPATHI, MEMBER (J):

1. Heard Mr.Ramesh.C.R for the applicants and Mr.Tojan J

Vathikulam for the respondents and perused the record.

2. In all the Original Applications, the disputes are almost common based on same set of facts, so with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all the Original

Applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the counsel’s statement filed in O.A.No.174 of 2013 will be taken as the basis to contest other connected cases, so he would not file any reply statement in the connected matters. 6

4. Apart from the aforesaid reply statement, the respondents filed today memo annexing relevant documents in the connected Original Applications, viz. O.A.Nos.175, 176,

177 and 178 of 2013 in order to show as to what fraud had been done by the applicants in their certificates/mark sheets.

5. It is relevant to mention that each of the applicants was recruited to the after due formalities.

When their educational certificates/mark sheets were sent for verification to the respective Board, they were found not tallying with the records maintained in the Board. So, the respondents proceeded to give show cause notices to the applicants calling upon them to show cause why they be not dismissed from the service. The applicants submitted their respective replies stating that the certificates/mark sheets were genuine but the respondents, after considering the explanations, found that the educational certificates/mark sheets were not genuine and accordingly passed the order dismissing them from services. The dismissal order was 7 passed in accordance with Section 20(3) of the Army Act read with Rule 17 of the Army Rules.

6. Mr.Ramesh.C.R appearing for the applicants submitted that the respondents did not hold any Court of

Inquiry, hence they were not justified in any way to dismiss the applicants from service only on the basis of the show cause notices. He next contended that Army Rule 180 was also not followed. So, the applicants had no opportunity to defend themselves. Mr.Ramesh lastly contended that even according to the reports of the respective Boards, the certificates/mark sheets were not forged, rather the reports were that the certificates did not tally with the original.

7. Mr.Tojan J Vathikulam appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that no Court of Inquiry was necessary. When the respondents received the information that the certificates/mark sheets and other documents furnished by the applicants were not genuine, it was open to the respondents to dismiss the applicants from service with 8 the aid of Section 20(3) of the Army Act, read with Army Rule

17. So, neither holding of any Court of Inquiry nor observance of Army Rule 180 was necessary.

8. In view of the fact that the respondents decided to dismiss the applicants from service under Army Rule 20(3) read with Army Rule 17, we have to see as to whether the proceedings so done by the respondents were within the frame work of Army Act Section 20(3) and Army Rule 17. If the applicants could be dismissed from the service under the aforesaid provisions, in that eventuality, holding of Court of

Inquiry or observance of Army Rule 180 was not necessary.

9. 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. 9

(1) xxx xxx xxx

(2) xxx xxx xxx (3) An officer having power not less than a 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.”... 10. 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 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 10

17. The provisions of Army Rule 17 being relevant may be reproduced as follows:

“ Dismissal or removal by Chief of the Army Staff a n d by other officers. —

Save in the case where a person is d i s m i s s e d o r 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 h i m a n d a l l o w e d 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 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”

11. 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 11 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 was 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 or inherent therein that the authority, who is to consider the reasons furnished by the 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 appropriate 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 12 reasons against the proposed action, if any, but also requires the authority concerned to give 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.

12. 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, 13 in all such matters a report must be sent to the Central

Government.

13. 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. So, the Army Rule

17 has been incorporated to apply the principles of natural justice in the matter of dismissal of Army personnel. In our view, no dismissal made in utter violation of the said rule can be upheld judicially.

14. 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.

14

15. 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 requirement to record reasons can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities.

16. In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth

Board of Works, (1963) 143 ER 414, the principle was thus stated: 15

"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''.

17. 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

'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 16 exercising the quasi judicial functions or administrative functions involving civil consequences. An order disclosing no reason apparently violates the principles of natural justice.

18. 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, (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 is also held that the application of the doctrine depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular 17 case and cannot be applied in a straight jacket manner. The second exception is the “doctrine of prejudice” and according to that, the doctrine of prejudice must also need to be proved in addition to breach of natural justice and this principle 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.

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 18 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.

19. The individual cases of the applicants need to be examined in the backdrop of the aforesaid settled principles.

OA.No.174 of 2013:

20. The applicant Patil Ranjeet Hari No.2809779W had furnished relationship certificate Annexure R1 to show that he was son of No. JC 752871F Sub/Tech B Veh Patil Hari

Sakharam Unit 616 EME Bn and also disclosed in that certificate his date of birth as 14th July 1989. The Relationship

Certificate was produced to claim credit in the recruitment as a

Ward of another soldier. On verification the Relationship

Certificate was found genuine to the extent that he was son of the aforesaid Patil Hari Sakharam. But the date of birth disclosed in the Relationship Certificate as 14th July 1989 was incorrect and according to the record, his actual date of birth 19 was 15th July 1987. It is also significant to state that this applicant was declared failed in the Secondary School

Certificate Examination of the year 2003 by Maharashtra State

Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, vide Annexure R2(2). But the applicant made interpolation in the certificate and showed him as passed candidate which he furnished at the time of his recruitment vide Annexure R2(3).

So, the certificate Annexure R2(3) produced by the applicant was, on verification, found forged and this fact is evident from the verification report Annexure R4 signed by the Maharashtra

State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education

Kolhapur Divisional Board, Rajendra Nagar, Kolhapur. The learned counsel for the respondents informed that Kolhapur

Divisional Board is a Sub Board of the main Board, Pune. So, acting on the basis of the verification reports, the respondents served the show cause notice on the applicant and after receiving his replies decided to dismiss him from the service. 20

O.A.No.175 of 2013:

21. The applicant Vikas Pundlik Chavan No.2809827L has filed the O.A challenging his dismissal from the Army

Service. This applicant is alleged to have furnished at the time of his recruitment, mark sheet relating to the SSLC

Examination conducted by the Karnataka Secondary Education

Examination Board, which disclosed that he had passed SSLC

Examination in second division with 59.04 percentage of marks. When the certificate/mark sheet was sent for verification to the concerned Board, it was informed by the

Board that the certificate/mark sheet furnished by the applicant was not genuine due to the reason he had made interpolation in the marks obtained by him in the subjects

Kannada, Mathematics, Science and Social Science. According to the record furnished by the Karnataka Secondary

Education Examination Board, the applicant had obtained only

43.04 percentage marks and was accordingly declared passed.

But while furnishing the certificate/mark sheet at the time of recruitment he made interpolation in the aforesaid subjects 21 and increased the marks. The verification report submitted by the Board has also been produced. The learned counsel for the applicant tried to contend that in the first paragraph of the report sent by the Board it has been mentioned that certificates of the following candidates on verification were found genuine and the name of the applicant also appears amongst the enlisted candidates. So the Board informed that the certificate furnished by the applicant was genuine. In this connection Mr.Tojan invited our attention to serial No.18 of the list so furnished by the Karnataka Secondary Education

Examination Board with regard to the applicant, in which it is mentioned that his certificate was not genuine. So on the basis of comments made in the opening portion of the verification report the applicant cannot be permitted to say that his certificate was found genuine by the Board, especially when with regard to the applicant’s case a specific mention has been made at serial No.18 that his certificate was not genuine.

22. Acting on the basis of the verification report, the respondents served the show cause notice on the applicant and 22 after considering the replies furnished by him decided to dismissed him from the service.

OA.No.176 of 2013:

23. The applicant Patil Shivaj Shankar No. 2809915F has filed the Original Application challenging his dismissal from the

Army service. The applicant had produced two statements of marks and one Secondary School Certificate at the time of his recruitment, copies whereof are on record as Annexures R1(1),

R1(2) and R1(3). According to Annexure R1(1), the applicant was declared failed in the English subject. So he appeared in the supplementary examination and was declared passed in the English subject vide Annexure R1(2). The Secondary

School Certificate Annexure R1(3) was filed to support the passing of the supplementary examination. All these documents were sent for verification to the Maharashtra State

Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Kolhapur

Divisional Board, Rajendranagar, Kolhapur for verification. By

Ext.R2(2), the Board informed that the applicant had obtained 23 only 205 marks and was declared failed, but he made changes in the marks in subjects Marathi, Hindi, Mathematics, Science and Social Science and showed him as passed after obtaining

305 marks with 49.62 percentage.

24. The respondents acting on the verification report so received from the concerned Board served the show cause notice on the applicant and ultimately dismissed him from the service after considering his replies to the show cause notice.

O.A.No.177 of 2013:

25. The applicant Dorugude Santosh Ramchandra

No.2809959Y has filed the Original Application challenging his dismissal from the Army service. The applicant had produced a copy of the Secondary School Certificate, Annexure R1, and also a copy of statement of marks Annexure R1(2) at the time of his recruitment which show that he was declared failed in

Mathematics. So he appeared in the supplementary examination and passed also in Mathematics subject after obtaining 66 marks (vide Annexure R1(3). The Maharashtra 24

State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education,

Kolhapur Divisional Board, Rajendranagar, Kolhapur on verification informed that the marks shown in the mark sheets furnished by the applicant did not tally with the office records.

According to the Board, the applicant had obtained only 33.86 percentage marks and was declared failed in the Secondary

School Examination. He made changes in the marks in the subjects Marathi, Hindi, English and Science disclosing that he had obtained 344 marks with 45.86 percentage. The respondents acting on the verification report, served the show cause notice on the applicant and after considering his replies decided to dismiss him from the service.

O.A.No.178 of 2013:

26. The applicant Santosh Vithal Chougule No.2809749Y has filed the Original Application challenging his dismissal from the Army service. The applicant had produced the certificate

Annexure R1 at the time of his recruitment to the Indian Army showing that he had passed SSLC Examination and had 25 obtained 59.84 marks. The Board on verification informed the respondents that the certificate was forged and did not tally with the records. The respondents acting on the verification report served the show cause notice on the applicant and after considering his replies decided to dismiss him from the service.

27. Mr.Ramesh.C.R appearing for all the aforesaid applicants contended that the authorities while passing the dismissal order did not disclose any appropriate reason in the dismissal order. He next contended that the replies furnished by the applicants were also not given due consideration in a proper way, so the dismissal orders passed against the applicants were not tenable. He further contended that no inquiry was held before the final decision was taken in the matter by the respondents, so the orders of dismissal were bad also on this ground.

28. The applicants have not filed any reliable evidence to show that the certificates/mark sheets produced by them at 26 the time of enrolment were in any way genuine. They have even not produced any evidence to controvert the verification reports received by the respondents from the concerned

Boards. So, it appears to be case of undisputed facts in which the doctrine of ‘useless formality’ is fully attracted. In our view, no useful purpose would be served if any fresh inquiry is held in the matter.

29. More so, the respondents had adequate powers to dismiss the applicants from the service in accordance with

Army Section 20(3) and Army Rule 17, and if the respondents decided to proceed against the applicants under the aforesaid provisions they were not required to hold any inquiry. The verification reports received from the respective Boards were quite genuine and there is nothing on record to controvert them, therefore, the respondents were fully justified in relying upon the verification reports in deciding that the certificates/mark sheets furnished by the applicants were not genuine. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the applicants could not point out as to how the applicants stood 27

prejudiced because of holding of no inquiry. The respondents provided adequate opportunity to the applicants to furnish their replies. Their replies were almost vague and uncertain.

They did not even produce any evidence to show that the certificates and Mark sheets produced by them were genuine.

Keeping in view all the aforesaid relevant material aspects of the case, the decisions to dismiss the applicants from service were taken by the respondents, which cannot be assailed only on the ground that detailed orders were not passed. More so, the orders of dismissal communicated to the applicants had disclosed reasons in brief. In our view, brief reasons are also considered sufficient for due compliance of the principles of natural justice.

30. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the Original

Applications and they are liable to be dismissed.

28

31. All the Original Applications are dismissed.

32. There will be no order as to costs.

33. Inform the parties.

Sd/- Sd/-

VICE ADMIRAL M.P. MURALIDHARAN, JUSTICE SHRIKANT TRIPATHI, MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

(true copy) an. Prl.Pvt.Secretary