BHIM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide discharge certificate dated 4th August, 2002, the petitioner, Bhim Singh was discharged from Army Service under Army Rule 13(3)III(v). In the present writ petition, the petitioner has raised a challenge to the correctness of this discharge certificate in different grounds.

(2.) On 25th April, 1994, the petitioner joined Garhwal Rifles as Rifleman. He was under training for a period of 1 year and thereafter was asked to report at Binna Guri, West Bengal in the year 1995. According to the petitioner, he worked sincerely and to the satisfaction of all concerned. The petitioner had gone on leave and joined his unit 6 days late. He was awarded 28 days' rigorous imprisonment and a red ink entry was made in his service record for the same. The petitioner was sent to Siachin Glacier where he served for 2 years. During that period once the petitioner had lost his identity card for which he was awarded 7 days' rigorous imprisonment and again a red mark was made in his service record. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Pune. He had contracted Epilepsy and a Medical Board was conducted in April, 1996. The petitioner took leave and went to his home. The petitioner again joined his duty 7 days late and was awarded punishment for the same. According to the petitioner, there was no dereliction of duty on his part and he tried his best to serve the Army. In the month of July, 2002 while the unit was coming to the Base, the petitioner suffered from Epileptic Convulsion and could not reach the Unit within time, which resulted in another punishment and still another red entry was made in his service record. Finally, the petitioner was discharged from Army Service under Rule 13(3)(III)(v) as aforerecorded on 4th August, 2002, resulting in filing of the present petition.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the order of discharge is in violation to the rules, principles of natural justice and amounts to double jeopardy inasmuch as the petitioner had already been awarded punishment for each of the earlier offence and thus, he could not be discharged from Army Service on the same grounds. This action of the respondent, according to the petitioner, attracts the impermissible concept of double punishment for the same offence.