LACHHMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under the garb of discipline, the disciplined force cannot be allowed to loose its human face. If young recruits to such a Force are dismissed or removed at the drop of hat on the whimsicality of the governing or commanding authority, it is likely to produce a negative effect and shudder the young aspirants from joining Armed Forces particularly the Army even if they have will to serve the nation. Even otherwise the unemployment scenario of this country is so deplorable and dismal that even the highly educated persons are begging for lowly jobs. Though this aspect cannot be lost sight of while dealing with disciplinary action against the delinquent particularly ; when action is culminated into removal from service yet discipline cannot be sacrificed at the altar of humanitarian considerations.

(2.) Here is a young boy who was enrolled in Army at an age of 21 years as a recruit but was dismissed from service after being convicted by summary court martial after six months of his service. The facts leading to his dismissal are in short as under:-

(3.) Petitioner who was enrolled in the month of December, 1998 as a recruit received information sometime on 10.6.1999 from his father that the marriage of his brother was fixed oh 14.6.1999 and to that effect invitation and registered letter written by his father was handed over to B.H.M.Havaldar Santosh Kumar for grant of casual leave for attending the marriage. On 10.6.1999 itself, the petitioner reported to 'Nb .Subedar Ram Pravesh Sharma for suitable action for the grant of his leave. He reported the matter to Major R.K.Singh, Bty Commander and written request was made in the request book. The grant of leave was duly sanctioned by the Bty Commander for being put up before the Commanding Officer. It is averred that the petitioner being only young recruit was not fully aware of Army Rules regarding grant of leave and started his Journey for his home for attending marriage of his brother under the impression that his leave has been sanctioned in view of sanction granted by Bty Commander in the request book. He was under the impression that Bty Commander was the final sanctioning authority and thus on completion of his leave reported back on 27.6.1999 on his own.