EX GUNNER GD SURESH KUMAR Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21st January, 2000 discharging the petitioner from Army service under the provisions of Army Rule 13 Item No. (iii) (v) of the table annexed to the said Army Rules.

(2.) The facts in a nutshell are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Regiment of Artillery on 22nd August, 1995 against Unit Headquarters Quota enrolment by the Artillery Centre, Nasik Road Camp. On completion of his basic military training at the Artillery Centre, Nasik Road Camp, he was posted to 99, Field Regiment C/o 56 APO on 5th August, 1996. However, a case of malpractice in enrolment came to light in the year 1996. A court of inquiry was held to investigate the circumstances under which the alleged recruitment related malpractice took place in the Artillery Centre, Nasik Road Camp during the period 1994-1995. The General Officer Commanding, Maharashtra and Gujarat Area directed, vide para 7 (b) of his directions dated 7th July, 1997, that all cases of unauthorised recruitment/enrolment be examined and if necessary, services of such individuals be terminated administratively. Simultaneously, disciplinary proceedings against the persons responsible being one subedar head clerk and two hawaldar clerks were initiated by a General Court Martial. So far as the 12 persons who were allegedly recruited illegally and unauthorisedly were concerned, action was directed to be taken against them in terms of the provisions of Rule 13 (iii) (v) of the Army Rules.

(3.) A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 7th January, 2000 whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause why his services should not be terminated on administrative grounds under the provisions of Army Rule 13 Item (iii) (v). It was mentioned in the said show cause notice that as per the details regarding enrolment of the petitioner received from the Artillery Centre, Nasik Road Camp, his name was not included in the Unit Headquarters Enrolment Board of July, 1995. The petitioner on 14th August, 2000 replied that he did not know how he had been declared as "bogus"; he had completed all rules of recruitment; completed all conditions of enrolment; on completion of training had been declared successful after qualifying requisite training test; and requested that he be permitted to continue in the service considering his performance in the Unit. On consideration of the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice issued to him and after he was granted a personal hearing by the Commanding Officer, the Competent Authority passed an order discharging the petitioner from service, which order is impugned in the present writ petition.