B C PANDEY Vs. STATION COMMANDER AIR FORCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order passed by the respondents on 2.11.93 discharging the petitioner from service as also the orders of confirmation dt.23.3.94 and dt.5.5.94.

(2.) The petitioner joined as an Airman under the respondents in 1962. The petitioner successfully completed 32 years of service with the respondents some time in the year 1993. The last tenure of the petitioner as an Airman would have come to an end on 30.6.1994. In terms of the existing policy of the respondents, options were called from the petitioner seeking his option of willingness/unwillingness for his extension of service. The petitioner gave in writing to the respondents his option of willingness to continue to serve the' Indian Air Force. Pursuant to the aforesaid exercise of option by the petitioner his service was extended for a further period of three years w.e.f. 22.6.94 to 21.6.97. The aforesaid request of the petitioner was acceded to by the competent authority, as a consequence of which the order dt.14.6.93 was issued extending his service for a period of three years starting from 22.6.94. However, immediately after the aforesaid order of extension of service of the petitioner for a period of three years, the petitioner gave in writing another application dt. 14.7.93 contending, inter alia, that on account of his domestic problems he was compelled to change his option and clearly stated that he did not want any further extension of service. Since the petitioner changed his option earlier given and exercised a clear option that he was unwilling for any extension of service and was also unwilling to serve Indian Air Force any further, an order was passed on the said application filed by the petitioner'accepting his option of unwillingness. Although the petitioner thereafter submitted representations to the respondents seeking for cancellation of his earlier application dt.14.7.93 on various grounds, the competent authority after considering the application of the petitioner, issued the order of discharge of the petitioner on the ground that change of option time and again was neither permissible nor acceptable.

(3.) The writ petition was contested by the respondents by filing a counter affidavit contending, inter alia, that it was only after issuance of the order of discharge of the petitioner that the petitioner started making representations himself as well as through his father that his services be extended again. It was specifically stated in the counter affidavit that the application filed by the petitioner dt.14.7.93 changing his option earlier given and exercising a clear option of unwillingness to serve any further on account of his domestic problems was processed by the respondents and forwarded to respondent No.2 on 1.9.93 along with the executive report, which was accepted by the competent authority. It is also stated that the petitioner's application dt.3.8.93 was actually submitted to the authority only on 16.9.93, whichwould be apparent from the Section Commander's signature in the month of September in his own hand. It was also stated that respondent no.2 issued the order of discharge of the petitioner on 22.10.93 and while passing the aforesaid order of discharge, the applications of the petitioner dt.14.7.93 and dt.3.8.93 (received on 16.9.93) were duly considered.