TEJINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents have passed an order under the purported exercise of the powers under Rule 15 (2)(g)(ii) of the Air Force Rules, 1969, on 28/8/98 discharging the petitioner from service. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner Joined the Indian Air Force on 19/1/1988. A warning letter was issued to the petitioner on 11/3/97 bringing to his notice that his service documents revealed that there were a total of three entries of punishment of which one was of red ink and other two of black ink in his conduct sheet as on 8/3/1997. In the context of the aforesaid position, it was brought to his notice that in accordance with the prevalent policy, the airmen, who fall in any of the following categories would be treated as habitual offender and would be considered for discharge from service under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Air Force Rules, 1969 under the clause "his service no longer required/unsuitable for retention in the Air Force":- (a) Total number of punishment entries six and above (including red & black ink entries) Or (b) Four red ink punishment entries. Or (c) Four punishment entries (red & black ink entries included) for repeated -commission of any one specific type of offence. The petitioner was further intimated that he was on the threshold of falling in the category of habitual offender under para 2 (c) above i.e. four punishment entries. Therefore, the petitioner was cautioned and counselled to mend himself and desist from the acts of indiscipline and was also warned that addition of another punishment entry as required by the category of habitual offenders would render him liable for discharge from service.

(3.) After expiry of about 11 months thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause why he should not be discharged from service under the aforesaid provisions of Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Air Force Rules, 1969. It was stated in the said notice that although the petitioner was warned in writing on 11/3/97, the petitioner had again indulged in the acts of indiscipline on 22/11/97 and had been awarded 'reprimand' for the same on 3/12/97. It was also indicated therein that perusal of his conduct sheet indicated that he was a poor airman material and not amenable to the service discipline. The petitioner was asked to show cause why the proposed action be not taken against him. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner asked for certain documents and thereafter submitted his reply to the show cause. The said reply was considered and thereafter the impugned order was issued by the respondents. Before the aforesaid order was passed, the petitioner was given the reasonable opportunity of showing cause, in terms of which he also showed cause and, therefore, no procedural violation was committed by the respondents while issuing the aforesaid impugned order. The petitioner also did not urge any procedural violation in the writ petition nor any such violation in issuing the impugned order was urged before me. The aforesaid show cause notice was duly served, to which the petitioner submitted his reply. The same was duly considered by the competent authority and the impugned order of discharge was passed against him. Although statutory remedy was available to the petitioner as against the aforesaid order but he did not resort to any of such statutory remedy and instead filed the present petition in this court.