Sep. Satgur Singh vs Union of India & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

2 September 2019

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 1857 of 2018

Result

Dismissed

Bench

L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta

Citation

[2019] 11 S.C.R. 1023 : 2019 INSC 988

Headnote

Service Law:

Discharge from service - On account of seven red ink entries - Plea that discharge order since passed without conducting enquiry as required under Para 5(a) of Army Instructions dated 28.12.1988, was not sustainable - Held: The nature of enquiry as contemplated under Para 5(a) is a preliminary enquiry and not a regular enquiry - The test of preliminary enquiry is satisfied if explanation of the personnel is submitted and an order is passed thereon - Thus, as per Para 5(a) adequate opportunity is granted to the personnel to put his defence - Order of discharge cannot be said to be unjustified.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Para 5(a) of the Army Instructions/Circular dated December 28, 1988 deals with an enquiry which is not a court of inquiry into the allegations against an army personnel. Such enquiry is not like departmental enquiry but semblance of the fair decision-making process keeping in view the reply filed. The court of inquiry stands specifically excluded. What kind of enquiry is required to be conducted would depend upon facts of each case. The enquiry is not a regular enquiry as para 5(a) of the Army Instructions suggests that it is a preliminary enquiry. The test of preliminary enquiry will be satisfied if an explanation of a personnel is submitted and upon consideration, an order is passed thereon. In the present case, the appellant has not offered any explanation in the reply filed except giving vague family circumstance. Thus, he has been given adequate opportunity to put his defence. Therefore, the parameters laid down in para 5(a) of the Army Instructions dated December 28, 1988 stand satisfied. [Para 7] [1028-E-G]

2. In reply to the show-cause notice, the appellant has not given any explanation of his absence from duty on seven occasions. He has been punished on each occasion for rigorous imprisonment ranging from 2 days to 28 days. A Member of the Armed Forces cannot take his duty lightly and abstain from duty at his will. Since the absence of duty was on several different occasions for which he w as imposed punishment of imprisonment, therefore, the order of discharge cannot be said to be unjustified. [Para 8] [1028-H; 1029-A-B] Veerendra Kumar Dubey v. Chief of Army Staff & Ors. (2016) 2 SCC 627 : [2015] 10 SCR 1013 distinguished.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed on April 30, 2014 by the Armed Forces Tribunal1, Chandigarh, Regional Bench at Chandimandir whereby, the discharge of the appellant on AFT account of seven red ink entries during his 11 years 9 months and 15 days service was not found to be unjustified. 2. The appellant was served with a show-cause notice on September 22, 2004 that the appellant has proved himself undesirable and retention in service is not considered suitable, in respect of seven punishments: two in th

View Subscription Plans →