RAM CHARAN NO 142554618M Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition avers as under: The petitioner was enrolled as a Signalman in the Corps of Signals of the Indian Army on 20.1.1984 after completing his training at Jabalpur. In the year 1985 the petitioner was posted at Jabalpur when he took leave for his marriage. On late return from leave he was punished with 7 days rigorous imprisonment in Military Custody for having overstayed leave without sufficient cause. It is further submitted that 1986 the petitioner's wife was admitted in Air Force Hospital, Kanpur where she delivered an underweight child and since the condition of both the mother and the child were described as serious, the petitioner again overstayed leave for which he was again awarded 7 days rigorous imprisonment under the Army Act. Again in 1990 when the petitioner was posted at Dimapur the petitioner was detailed to undergo an upgrading training Course at Goa. The petitioner joined the course belatedly after 33 days. The petitioner was thereafter issued the show notice dated 19/05/1993 in which five punishments were detailed in 9 years of service and it was stated that he was not considered suitable for further retention in the Army. Further the petitioner was asked to show cause why he should not be discharged from service after being found undesirable under Army Rule 13 (iii)(v) on 24.5.1993. The petitioner submitted his reply to the notice to show cause and on 4/06/1993 the petitioner's services were terminated and the appeal against the said order dismissed on 6.4.1994, leading to the present petition.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the above order dated 4th June 1993 terminating his services. The relevant portion of the order impugned in this petition reads as under:

(3.) The reasons given for the discharge of services of the petitioner by the respondents in the counter affidavit are that under the provisions of Rule 13(iii)(v) of the Army Rules 1954 the petitioner's services were terminated on account of his being an undesirable soldier. The petitioner has challenged the discharge in this Court and termed it as an order of dismissal and not discharge and further contended that this violates the principle of law laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Mitter vs. Union of India reported as AIR 1964 SC 449.