1
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
O.A.No.68 of 2012
Friday, the 19th day of April, 2013
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH
(MEMBER - JUDICIAL) AND
THE HONOURABLE LT GEN (RETD) ANAND MOHAN VERMA (MEMBER – ADMINISTRATIVE)
No. 2610215W Ex Sep A Karunai Udaiyarajan
S/o Shri Arumugam
Selvanayagapuram Village Venneervailkal (Post) – 623 04
Muthukulathur Taluk Ramanathapuram District
Tamil Nadu. … Applicant
By Legal Practitioner: Mr. V. Parthiban for M/s. Ayyar&Iyer
Vs.
1. Union of India, - Represented by
The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence,
South Block, DHQ (PO)
New Delhi - 110011.
2. The General Officer Commanding in Chief Headquarters
Southern Command Pune - 411 001.
3. The Commandant
Madras Regimental Centre Wellington – 643 231
(The Nilgiris) … Respondents
By Mr.B.Shanthakumar, SPC
2
ORDER
(Order of the Tribunal made by Hon’ble Justice V.PeriyaKaruppiah, Member-Judicial)
1. This application has been filed by the applicant praying for a direction
to call for the records in respect of the proceedings No.A/2406002/525/DV-3
dated 30.11.2011, issued under the signature of 2nd respondent and
forwarded by 3rd respondent in the letter dated 31.1.2012 arising out
unactioned and returned non-statutory petition of February, 2011 and to
quash the same and to further lift the regimental veil in not considering the
statutory petition dated 22.12.2011 filed under Section-164 of the Army Act
and also to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service with
all consequential and attendant benefits in the substantial interest of equity
and fairness within the time limit and also to pass suitable other directions.
2. The case of the applicant as stated in the application would be as
follows :-
The applicant was enrolled as a Sepoy in the Madras Regiment on
26.6.2002. After undergoing training, he was posted to 27 MADRAS. He
was further re-posted to 54, Rashtriya Rifle till 2007. On 5.8.2007, the
applicant was granted 64 days of annual leave commenced from 6.8.2007 to
3
8.10.2007. The applicant left home on 4.10.2007 to rejoin duty. When he
was travelling in a bus from Madurai to Chennai, when he checked his
baggages at Trichy bus station, the suitcase containing his Identity Card was
found missing and he was worried about the punishment in the unit for the
loss of Identity Card and, therefore, he was hesitant to go to unit and did
not also want to go back home. When he was sitting in the bus stand at
Chennai, one of the passengers took him to Salem for a job and the
applicant worked with one Vel Murugan Drillers Borewells vehicle,
Thiruchenkodu, as a helper till 4.3.2010. However, his mother lodged a
complaint about the missing of son with the local Police Station at
Muthukulathur. The applicant had spoken to his uncle about his position and
since his uncle told him to return back home, he took leave with Vel
Murugan Drillers Borewells vehicle on 5.3.2010 and reached his native place
Selvanayagapuram, where his parents and relatives reside. On 8.3.2010 at
7.00 P.M., the Muthukulathur Police apprehended the applicant on the basis
of his mother’s complaint and on the next day they took him to Tiruchy and
handed over to the Territorial Army Battalion. Thereafter, the applicant was
subject to Summary Court Martial on 2.1.2011 for over-staying leave and
losing Identity Card. The charges were framed against the applicant under
Section-39(b) and 54(b) of the Army Act for over-staying the leave and for
the loss of Identity Card, respectively. After the examination of the
witnesses in the Summary Court Martial, the applicant was asked to make a
4
statement in terms of Army Rules 23(1), (2), (3) and (4). The applicant
realised his mistake and accepted his guilt and sought pardon and requested
to consider his case sympathetically and he may be retained his service.
However, the request of the applicant was not accepted, but the extreme
penalty of dismissal of service was imposed by the 3rd respondent. The
applicant was graded exemplary, but for the allegations tried in Summary
Court Martial. The said conviction and sentence for the aforesaid offences
were issued under the signature of NS Rao, Officiating Adjutant for
Officiating Commandant, the Madras Regimental Centre. The said Officer
was well below the rank of Brigade Commander and not competent to issue
the impugned proceedings. During the recording of evidence, the
depositions were not interpreted and the signatures were not obtained. The
applicant preferred a non-statutory petition to the 2nd respondent against
the impugned sentence during February, 2011, but it was sent without
signature due to inadvertence. The said petition was immediately returned
by 2nd respondent as unactioned in its proceedings dated 25.2.2011, and the
said petition was not re-submitted to any authorities. However, he had sent
a statutory petition dated 22.12.2011 under Section-164 of Army Act, for
just consideration and orders. The 2nd respondent, after getting the said
petition, innocuously rejected the application unactioned dated February,
2011, by stating that orders were passed in the statutory petition sent
during February, 2011 on 30.11.2011. The said action of the respondents is
5
a clear after-thought and short-circuiting the rule of law. The respondents
might have conspired to reject the claim of the applicant and the said
conspiracy should be brought to light by piercing the regimental veil of the
respondents. The applicant sent a representation on 9.2.2012 to the 2nd
respondent marking a copy to 3rd respondent immediately on receipt of the
impugned proceedings dated 30.11.2011 received on 31.1.2012. There was
no response from the 2nd respondent. The applicant is aggrieved and
constrained to approach this Tribunal for quashing the impugned
proceedings and to issue necessary directions to the respondents to
reinstate the applicant into service with all attendant and consequential
benefits. The application may thus be allowed.
3. The objections raised by the respondents in the Counter would be as
follows :-
The applicant was no doubt enrolled in the Army and was granted
leave as stated in the application. For over-staying without sufficient cause
and for losing the Identity Card by neglect, he was tried by a Summary
Court Martial. The charge-sheet was handed over to the applicant on
28.1.2011 and the Summary Court Martial was held on 2.2.2011. The
accused pleaded guilty to both the charges. Apart from that, the trial was
conducted and after due compliance of Army Rule-115(2), the Officer
holding the trial, found the applicant guilty and he was sentenced to be
6
dismissed from service. The sentence was also promulgated on the same
day. The applicant submitted a petition during February, 2011, addressed to
GOC-in-C, Southern Command, and the said petition was returned to the
applicant on 25.2.2011. Since no petition was received under Army Act
Section-164(2) even after a period of one month, HQ Southern Command,
asked to process the case and accordingly the documents were forwarded to
HQ ATNK & K Area (DV) vide Madras Regimental Centre letter dated
2.6.2011, who in turn, forwarded to HQ Southern Command, through their
letter dated 16.6.2011. GOC-in-C, Southern Command, rejected the petition
in a reasoned order. The directions of GOC-in-C were received at Madras
Regimental Centre on 15.12.2011. However, a second petition dated
22.12.2011 was sent by the applicant. But directions were received by
Madras Regimental Centre even before that petition. A courier was sent by
Madras Regimental Centre for handing over the direction of GOC-in-C and
the applicant was not available at his home and, therefore, he was
subsequently informed at the work place on 28.12.2011. The applicant
avoided signing the documents on one pretext or other. Therefore, the copy
of directions were forwarded to him through Registered Post on 31.1.2012.
This would show that the directions of GOC-in-C were initiated even before
the second petition submitted by the applicant. As the second petition was
initiated after the rejection of the first petition, it was returned to the
applicant through a letter of Madras Regimental Centre dated 21.2.2012,
7
since only one petition under Army Act Section-164(2) could be filed. The
applicant was granted 64 days annual leave from 6.8.2007 to 8.10.2007.
The applicant’s case that he left home on 4.10.2007 was contradicted by his
mother’s statement in her complaint to Superintendent of Police by stating
that he left home on 6.10.2007 only. In a Habeas Corpus petition filed by
the mother before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, she said that
the applicant stayed with her till 6.10.2007. Therefore, the case of the
applicant that he started from home on 4.10.2007 and travelled in a bus
where he lost the suitcase containing Identity Card could not be true. It is
pertinent to note that the applicant pleaded guilty during the trial and he
had not cross-examined the witnesses and had conceded the guilt. The
Court found him guilty and accordingly sentenced him to be dismissed from
service. The said conviction and sentence passed against the applicant are
quite legal and as per rules. The Adjutant/Officiating Adjutant is competent
to sign the promulgation order and it is, therefore, not illegal. The
procedures as contemplated under Army Rules were scrupulously followed.
The recording of evidence was also done properly and there would be no
requirement of signature of the interpreter since the independent witness
signed in the proceedings. The punishment awarded by the Summary Court
Martial is just and legal and proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The
applicant had proved himself as an indisciplined solder by not only over-
staying leave on two occasions without any justification and also lost his
8
Identity Card. He had also worked with private persons by over-staying the
leave and this would show the indiscipline of the applicant. No injustice has
been done by the respondents in awarding the dismissal order. The Army is
a disciplined organization and illegal absence of almost 2½ years is not
acceptable in the organization. The applicant was dismissed from service
after following all the legal procedures. Therefore, there is no necessity to
interfere in the conviction and the sentence passed by the Summary Court
Martial and also in rejecting the statutory petition filed during February,
2011 by the applicant, confirming the conviction and punishment given by
the Summary Court Martial. Therefore, the application may be dismissed as
devoid of merits.
4. On the above pleadings, the following points were framed for
consideration :-
1) Whether the impugned Order dated 30.11.2011 signed by the
2nd respondent, which was forwarded by the 3rd respondent in its
letter dated 31.1.2012, is liable to be quashed ?
2) Whether the statutory petition dated 22.12.2011 filed under
Section-164 of the Army Act, ought to have been considered by
the 2nd respondent ?
9
3) Whether the applicant is entitled for reinstatement into service
with all consequential and attendant benefits ?
4) To what relief the applicant is entitled for ?
5. Heard Mr. V. Parthiban for M/s. Ayyar & Iyer, Learned Counsel for the
applicant and Mr. B. Shanthakumar, Learned Senior Panel Counsel assisted
by Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, Learned JAG Officer, appearing for the respondents.
6. The Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit in his argument
that the applicant was enrolled in Madras Regiment on 26.6.2002. While he
was in service, he was granted 64 days of annual leave with effect from
6.8.2007 to 8.10.2007 and after completion of the leave, he has started to
rejoin duty and while he was on his way to Chennai in a Madurai to Chennai
bound bus, he lost his suitcase at Tiruchy bus stand in which his Identity
Card was placed. He would also submit that since the applicant was scared
of punishment for losing the Identity Card, he was hesistant to either go
over to the unit to join duty or to return home and while he was sitting at
Chennai bus stand, he was taken by one of the passengers to Salem for a
job in Velmurugan Drillers Borewells vehicle, Thiruchenkodu, where he
worked till 4.3.2010. he would also submit that he was apprehended by the
Muthukulathur Police on the complaint of his mother when he was at his
native place on 8.3.2010 and was handed over to the Territorial Army
10
Battalion and from there he was taken to his unit and the Summary Court
Martial proceedings have been initiated on two charges, namely under
Section-39(b) of Army Act for over-staying leave granted to him and under
Section-54(b) of Army Act for losing by neglect the Identity Card, which is
the property of the Government issued to him for his use. The applicant had
pleaded guilty on the fond hope that he would be given lesser punishment
and would be ordered reinstatement in the service, but his request was not
heeded but a punishment of dismissal from service was ordered against him.
He would also submit that the applicant had submitted a non-statutory
petition dated February, 2011, before the competent authority against the
punishment of dismissal from service, but it was returned unactioned since it
was unsigned by the applicant. However, the applicant had submitted yet
another statutory petition under Section-164 of the Army Act on
22.12.2011. But it was rejected as if the petition submitted during
February, 2011, was ordered on 30.11.2011 and the 2nd petition was not
sustainable since there was already a statutory petition filed by the
applicant. He would submit in his argument that the said Order dated
30.11.2011 was unscrupulously cooked up for the purpose of rejecting the
statutory petition dated 22.12.2011. In the said statutory petition dated
22.12.2011, the applicant had elaborately challenged the verdict of
Summary Court Martial and the 2nd respondent rejected the said petition
since those points should have embarrassed him. He would also submit that
11
the rejection of the statutory petition dated 22.12.2011 moved under
Section-164 of the Army Act, should have been set aside and thereby the
dismissal order passed by the Summary Court Martial should consequentially
be set aside and the applicant be reinstated in service. He would further
submit that the mandatory provisions of convening Summary Court Martial
were not followed and the Summary Court Martial had exceeded its powers.
The punishment under Section-39(d) of Army Act for absence without leave
could be a maximum period of three years imprisonment or such less
punishment as defined in the Act. But the larger punishment of dismissal
from service was imposed for the absence without leave. He would further
submit that the other procedures for translation of evidence and recording of
findings on conviction, promulgation of verdict have not been followed by
the Summary Court Martial as slated in the statute (Army Act, 1950). He
would also submit that the character of the applicant was exemplary and he
was not able to rejoin army after the expiry of the leave granted to him
owing to the reasons as stated in the application and there was any
unwillingness on the part of the applicant to serve in the army. He would
further submit in his argument that the rejection of the statutory petition
filed under Section-164 of the Army Act was ordered with a malafide
intention and the earlier order passed on 30.11.2011 was a cooked-up one
on an unactioned petition already returned by the 2nd respondent and on
that score itself the impugned order passed on 30.11.2011 on the
12
application dated February, 2011, and the rejection of the statutory petition
dated 22.12.2011 ought to have been set aside and the verdict pronounced
in the Summary Court Martial be consequently set aside and the applicant
may be ordered to be reinstated in service.
7. Learned Senior Panel Counsel, would submit in his argument that the
applicant himself admitted that he lost his Identity Card during transit from
Madurai to Chennai at Tiruchy bus stand. This would show that the
applicant was not pursuing his carrier or loss of his Identity Card since he
did not give any Police complaint immediately. Per contra, he had neither
proceeded to the work place nor to his house, but went with some stranger
to Salem for undertaking a job and worked for three years. He would also
submit that the mother of the applicant had given a complaint to
Muthukulathur Police wherein she has stated that the applicant was missing
from the native place and he was with her till 6.10.2007 during his annual
leave. However, the applicant had detailed in his application that he started
from his native place on 4.10.2007 in order to rejoin service after the expiry
of leave which would palpably be a falsehood. He would also submit that the
Order passed in the first statutory petition which was unsigned by the
applicant was bonafide disposed of by the competent authority on
30.11.2011. The said order passed by the competent authority was sent
through a courier by Madras Regimental Centre, who approached the
13
applicant at his home address initially, subsequently at the place of work on
28.12.2011 for obtaining signature. But the applicant was avoiding signing
documents on one pretention or other and, therefore, a Registered Post was
sent on 31.1.2012 in order to inform the order passed in the statutory
petition dated February, 2011. Therefore, he would submit that the order
was not a hatched one on seeing the second petition of the applicant dated
22.12.2011. He would further submit that the applicant does not deserve to
be reinstated in service and he was rightly dismissed from service for the
negligence of losing his Identity Card as well as the inaction on the part of
the applicant for not tracing the said Identity Card. He would further submit
that the applicant was merrily working in Tiruchenkodu, Salem District,
without thinking of rejoining service for nearly three years and he was not,
therefore, entitled to ask for reinstatement. He would further submit that
the applicant could not pinpoint the defects of the Summary Court Martial
proceedings as it was done properly in accordance with law. Especially when
the applicant had pleaded guilty, even though there was no need to examine
witnesses, the witnesses speaking about the circumstances of arresting the
applicant and for bringing him from the place of arrest to the Court Martial
were adduced in evidence and the verdict was given on the basis of the
pleading guilty by the applicant and the corroborative evidence. He would
further submit that the competent authority was right in dismissing the
statutory petition filed in February, 2011, upholding the procedure followed
14
by the Summary Court Martial as correct. The confirming of the verdict was
also not liable to be set aside. He would further submit that the rejection of
the second statutory petition was also not assailable since an earlier order
was passed already in the application dated February, 2011 based upon the
photocopy retained by the respondent. He would, therefore, submit that
there could not be any discrimination against the applicant nor any violation
of Articles 17, 21 and 41 of the Constitution of India. He would further
submit that if for any reason the applicant is reinstated, it would be a bad
precedent for other soldiers since the applicant had lost his Identity Card
and proved himself as a bad example and abstained from service by over
staying for a period of more than 2½ years. He would, therefore, submit
that the application may be dismissed as devoid of merits.
8. We have given anxious considerations to the arguments advanced on
either side.
9. Points 1 to 3: The case of the applicant that he was enrolled in the
Army in the year 2002 and while serving as a Soldier, he was granted leave
from 6.8.2007 to 8.10.2007, and he started from his native place on
4.10.2007 to join his duty, but he had lost his Identity Card at Tiruchy bus
stand when his suitcase was stolen and, therefore, he could not join duty nor
return to his native place and, therefore, he had over-stayed the leave
15
granted, were not entirely admitted by the respondents. According to the
applicant, the applicant was hesitant to return home owing to the loss of
Identity Card and, therefore, he accompanied a person of Salem, who
promised him to give a job at Vel Murugan Drillers Borewells vehicle,
Thiruchenkodu, Salem District. The applicant had admitted in his application
that he worked at Thiruchenkodu till 4.3.2010. Therefore, it is very clear
that the applicant did not disclose his place of employment or his
wherebaouts either to his home or to the unit, where he was serving. If
really the applicant had lost the Identity Card in Tiruchy bus stand, he ought
to have given a Police complaint as a dutiful soldier of the Indian Army. No
explanation has been offered by the applicant for not giving such a
complaint with the Police. The case of the applicant that he left the village
on 4.10.2007 to join duty was falsified by the complaint given by his mother
that the applicant was staying with her at the native village till 6.10.2007.
Similarly, in a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the mother of the applicant
before Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, she stated that the applicant
was staying with her till 6.10.2007 and thereafter, he vanished. Such
contentions raised by the respondents in the Counter were not retracted nor
shown as wrong by the applicant. In the said circumstances, we could
presume that the discrepancy in the date of leaving the native place
Vasudevanallur by the applicant on 4.10.2007, has not been explained and,
therefore, it cannot be believed.
16
10. It is not disputed that the applicant was apprehended at his native
village on 8.3.2010 when he visited his native place at the request of his
maternal uncle on 4.3.2010. After apprehension by the Muthukulathur
Police, he was handed over to Tiruchy Territorial Army Battalion and thus he
was brought to unit and Summary Court Martial proceedings have been
initiated. After the initiation of Summary Court Martial proceedings, the
applicant was proceeded on two charges under Section-39(b) and 54(b) of
the Army Act on the following charges :-
“First Charge under Army Act Sec 39(b) :-
“WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE OVERSTAYING LEAVE
GRANTED TO HIM” – in that he
At field, on 06 Aug 2007, having been granted leave of absence
from 06 Aug 2007 to 08 Octo 2007 to proceed to his home,
failed without sufficient cause, to rejoing at 54 Rashtriya Rifles
(MADRAS) on 08 Octo 2007 (AN) on expiry of said leave and
remained so absent till he was apprehended by HC-71 Muthaiah
and Grd 1517 A Murugesn of Mudukalathur Police station,
Ramanathapuram-District on 09 Mar 2010 at 1015 hrs and
handed over to 117 Inf Bn (TA) The Guards on 09 March 2010 at
1310 hrs, who further handed him over to No 2590940Y Hav Anil
17
Kumar PC of the Madras Regimental Centre on 17 Mar 2010 at
1800hrs.
Second Charge Army Act Sec 54(b):
“LOSING BY NEGLECT IDENTITY CARD THE PROPERTY OF
GOVERNMENT ISSUED TO HIM FOR HIS USE” – In that he, at
Madurai on 05 Oct 2007 while traveling by bus from Madurai to
Chennai, negligently lost his Identity Card bearing machine No.
E-594898, the property of the Government, issued to him for his
use.”
The applicant had pleaded guilty on both the charges. The
apprehension of the applicant and the production of the applicant with the
Territorial Army Battalion at Tiruchy and the production of the applicant
before the unit had been spoken by the prosecution witnesses 1 to 3. The
Officer presiding over the Summary Court Martial after considering all the
evidence and circumstances and the pleading guilty by the applicant, had
passed an order of conviction and punishment of dismissal from service.
The relevant records regarding the Summary Court Martial have been
produced. On a careful perusal of those records, the convening of Summary
Court Martial and the conduct of the proceedings, framing of charges,
recording of evidence, pleading of the accused, conduct of every
18
proceedings, pronouncement of verdict were found to be in accordance with
law.
11. The contention raised by the applicant was that the dismissal from
service imposed against the applicant as a punishment was not
contemplated under Section-39(d) of the Army Act and it is a higher
punishment than the punishment mentioned in the said Section. For better
appreciation of the contention, the provision of Section-39(d) of Army Act, is
necessarily to be extracted :-
12. In the said provision, we could see that the maximum period of
imprisonment to be imposed for an offences under Section-39(b) of the
Army Act would be three years or any other lesser punishment as
contemplated in the Act. As regards the punishment of dismissal from
service, it has been provided under Section-71(e) of the Army Act. Could
the punishment of dismissal be higher punishment than three years
punishment ? The contention raised by the applicant was that the dismissal
from service is a higher punishment than the imprisonment of three years.
On a careful perusal of the construction of Section-71 of the Army Act, the
punishment listed in Section-71(a) to (e) is in a descending order in which
the dismissal from service is arranged after the death sentence and
imprisonment provisions. Therefore, it can not be said that the dismissal
from service is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges against the
applicant.
19
13. The conduct of the Summary Court Martial was dealt by the competent
authority in the statutory petition filed by the applicant during February,
2011. It is an admitted case that the applicant had presented a statutory
petition of February, 2011, without putting a specific date and without
putting his signature. The said application was photocopied according to the
respondents and was retained by them. The case of the applicant was that
it was returned unactioned and it was also evidenced by a letter written by
the applicant. However, there was an order passed by the competent
authority by confirming the sentence passed by the Summary Court Martial
on 30.11.2011. The specific case of the applicant was that the application
was returned unactioned and, therefore, it should not be considered by the
competent authority as a statutory petition to be filed under Section-164.
Similarly, he would also plead that the said order dated 30.11.2011 was
passed only after the receipt of the second statutory petition sent by him on
22.12.2011 and, therefore, it was a cooked-up order. The contention of the
respondents was that the applicant had evaded the receipt of the order
passed on 30.11.2011 when it was sent by courier even before the date of
his second statutory petition and knowing full well that an order was passed
on the photocopy of the earlier application he sent, the second statutory
petition, which was not in time, was sent by the applicant. Considering the
facts and circumstances, we could understand that the earlier petition filed
by the applicant during February, 2011, was without signature and without a
20
specific date in February, 2011. No doubt, it was sent by the applicant and
it was returned as unactioned by the 2nd respondent. However, the 2nd
respondent had taken up the said petition as a statutory petition since there
was no reply from the applicant, by sending the said petition by putting his
signature in the unactioned statutory petition within a reasonable time of
one month and an order was passed. When a statutory petition has not
been filed and on reference by the Summary Court Martial, the competent
authority is empowered to confirm the sentence imposed by the Summary
Court Martial under Section-153 of Army Act. Therefore, the order passed
on the unsigned application sent by the applicant for the confirmation of the
sentence passed by the Summary Court Martial cannot be challenged by the
applicant as it was not sent by him or it was returned as unactioned.
Moreover, the second statutory petition was sent by the applicant after a
long gap without any reason on 22.12.2011. By that time, the competent
authority authorized under Section-153 and 164(2) of the Army Act, had
passed the order on 30.11.2011 by confirming the sentence passed by the
Summary Court Martial. In the said circumstances, the second statutory
petition could not be considered by the competent authority since an order
of confirmation had already been passed either on the photocopy of the
unactioned application submitted by the applicant or under the provisions of
Section-153 of Army Act. In the said circumstances, the rejection of the
second statutory petition cannot be said as illegal nor the order of
21
confirmation of the verdict of Summary Court Martial passed on the first
application dated February, 2011, held illegal.
14. When we go into the merits of confirming the sentence passed by the
Summary Court Martial, the competent authority had discussed the points
that the accused had pleaded guilty to both the charges and the Officer
holding the trial found him guilty and rightly sentenced him to be dismissed
from service. Apart from that, the reasons put forth by the applicant that he
was a poor soldier and his plea for reinstatement were considered, and in
order to maintain discipline, such reinstatement was negatived and the
sentence of dismissal was found commensurate with the gravity and nature
of the offences. The competent authority even though not required to give
reasons for registering confirmation of the findings of the Summary Court
Martial as per the Judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1990
SC, 1984 between S.N. Mukherji Vs. Union of India, proper reasons were
given by the competent authority. The applicant had uttered a lie regarding
the time of departure from his native place to rejoin service could be
evidenced in the application itself and the conduct of the applicant as told by
him in losing the Identity Card and his failure to give a Police complaint,
would show that he was not a prudent solider to act at relevant times and
his silence and his accepting an alternative employment at Thiruchenkodu,
Salem, without informing his family as well as the serving unit for about
three years would show that he does not deserve reinstatement in service
22
and even the dismissal order is not liable to be set aside. In the said
circumstances, the applicant is not entitled for the reliefs of setting aside the
orders passed by the 2nd respondent in the statutory petition dated
February, 2011, on 30.11.2011, and also the rejection order passed on the
second statutory petition filed on 22.12.2011. He is also not found entitled
for reinstatement in the service. Accordingly, all the three points are
decided against the applicant.
15. Point No.4: In view of our discussion held above, we find that the
applicant is not entitled to any relief sought for in the application.
Accordingly, the application is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
16. In fine, the application is dismissed. However, there is no order as to
costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH LT GEN (Retd) ANAND MOHAN VERMA MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A)
19.4.2013
Member (J) – Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No
Member (A)– Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No
NCS
23
To,
1. Union of India, - Represented by
The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence,
South Block, DHQ (PO) New Delhi - 110011.
2. The General Officer Commanding in Chief Headquarters
Southern Command Pune - 411 001.
3. The Commandant
Madras Regimental Centre Wellington – 643 231
(The Nilgiris).
4. Mr. V. Parthiban for M/s. Ayyar&Iyer,
Counsel for applicant.
5. Mr.B.Shanthakumar,
Senior Panel Counsel
6. OIC, Legal Cell, ATNK & K Area,
Chennai-600009.
7. Library, AFT, Chennai.
24
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
AND
HON’BLE LT GEN (RETD) ANAND MOHAN VERMA
MEMBER (ADMINISTRATIVE)
O.A.No.68 of 2012
19.04.2013