RAM DEV PRASAD SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Shri Ram Dev Prasad Singh was appointed as Sepoy/ Driver with the respondent on 17th September,1971. In May,1973 he was converted to the post of Electrical Mechanical Engineer (E.M.E.), Secunderabad. The case as set up by the petitioner is, that in 1976 while on duty, he sustained injury effecting his ear and mental state of his mind. On account of certain incidents which took place he was subjected to punishment by his officers from time to time. . These punishments were totally unwarranted as the acts committed by the petitioner were not intentional. In May,1984, on the basis of those punishments inflicted in the past, a show cause notice was served on him asking him as to why action be not taken. In June,1984 petitioner was treated in the Military Hospital for unsoundness of his mind. In September,1984 the petitioner was sent back to a unit in Bhopal from Lucknow retaining his medical category as Standard 'A-l'. Even when he was transferred from Bhopal to his Unit E.M.E. Secudarabad, he was kept for a month and half in the psychatric wing of the Military Hospital. In the end of November,1984, the petitioner was relieved from his services without affording him any opportunity or giving him any hearing. While relieving him the respondent handed over a site railway warrant and a discharge book. The discharge book was incomplete. It was not signed by the issuing authority. The discharge book would show that the petitioner was discharged vide order dated 15th June,1984 sanctioned by Comdt. 3 EME Centre, Bhopal whereas he in fact was relieved w.e.f. 13th January,1985. On the date of his discharge the petitioner had put in 14 years of service. Being mentally sick the respondent ought to have reduced his medical category from 'A-l' to 'E'. Had the respondent reduced the medical category of the petitioner in 1976 itself or thereafter, the petitioner would have become entitled to various pensionery benefits under the Pension Regulations. Being aggreived the present writ petition has been filed. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent of discharging and relieving him from service and for not reducing his medical category.

(2.) The respondent took the stand that services of the petitioner were no longer required. He had become undesirable hence discharged. As per the entry in his service record, he was inflicted with as many as eight punishments between September,1975 to April,1984 for various offences committed by him. Show cause notice dated 17th May,1984 was based on the punishments inflicted on him for which purpose respondent found him undesirable and, therefore, decided to discharge him from service. The punishment imposed on the petitioner was under Section 63 of the Army Act while serving in field. He had brought an unauthorised person (women) in Unit Lines for illegitimate purposes. Therefore, imprisoned for 28 days and 14 days detention in Military Custody. Again for using insubordinate language to his superior officer he was imprisoned for 28 days in Military Custody which was under Section 40(c) of the Army Act. He also suffered 28 days RI in Military custody under Section 39(a) of the Army Act for absenting himself without due permission from the Unit Lines. For threatening the superior officer he was punished under Section 40(b) of the Army Act. He was found in unauthorised possession of 50 gms. of Bhang and, therefore, suffered 28 days RI in military Custody under section 63 of the Army Act. The petitioner was awarded 14 days imprisonment in Military Custody because of using criminal force to a Santry on duty. He was awareded seven days detention under Section 46(a) of the Army Act because he urinated in a container in front of the Santries and threw towards quarter guard of the day. This was treated as a disgraceful conduct of an indecent kind. He was awarded 7 days Rl in Military Custody under Section 41(1) of the Army Act for disobedience to superior officers. He was imprisoned for seven days in the Military Custody for an act prejudicial to Good order and military discipline. He was awarded 10 days imprisonment in Military Custody under Section 39(a) of the Army Act for absenting himself without leave. In view of this conduct and utter bad disciplinary record of service, his retention in service was considered detrimental by his officer Comanding, who recommended for his discharge. This recommendation was-sanctioned by the competent authority on 15th June, 1984. At the time of his discharge from service his total physical service in the Army was only 13 years, 3 months and 26 days. For an army person to become entitled for service pen- sion a minimum of 15 years service was required. He was paid service gratuity and death- cum-retirement gratuity for the service rendered by him. Despite various punishments awarded, the petitioner did not improve his ways, thus he was considered rendered himself undesirable for the army service. He was discharged due to bad character and repeated commitment of offences. He was discharged after serving him with a show cause notice. At the time of discharge from hospital, he was in medical category of AYE which means the petitoner was mentally and.physicaly in perfectly good condition. He was never admitted in Military hospital at Secunderabad in June,1984 or thereafter. Since the documents could not be received from his Unit, hence his discharge was delayed upto November, 1984. The petitoner was granted 60 days annual leave.for the year 1984 w.e.f. 14th November,1984 to 12th January,1995. As regards the discharge book, only one book is issued to the individuals at the time of discharge as per rules. If the same had not been signed or incomplete, the petitioner could have approached EME Record Officer for the rectifications. The said rectifications can even now be done. So far as the placement in appropriate medical category that is done by a constituted Medical Board of Officers after following medical study by the specialists concerned with the case.

(3.) Mr.Sanjeev Anand's main thrust of arguments had been that the respondent before discharging the petitioner did not comply the procedure as circulated vide Army Head Quarters Letter No.13210/AG/PS 2(C) dated 23rd August,1965 dealing with the procedure for removal of undesirable and inefficient JCOs, WOs and ORs. The petitioner falls in the category of ORs. Mr.Sanjeev Anand drew the attention of this Court to Rule 4 of the said circular dealing with the procedure for dismissal/discharge of undesirable JCOs, WOs and ORs, which is produced as under: