RAJPUT BHAVARSINGH TAKHATSINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ld. Advocate Ms. Sadhna Sagar for the petitioner and Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt, Ld. Advocate for the respondents.

(2.) THE judgment and order dated 7/10/2003 in Original Application No. 342/2003 with Misc. Application No. 510/2003 [MA] passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, are under challenge. By impugned order, the Tribunal has held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain and try such Original Application [OA] and directed the Registrar of the Tribunal to return the OA to the applicant for presentation to the proper forum.

(3.) IT is not disputed fact that the authority has issued show cause notice on 7/8/1998 and he was discharged from his duty working with effect from 14/10/1998 under Army Rule 13 [3][III][v], before completion of terms of engagement on the ground that service is no longer required being undesirable. His actual term of engagement was 20 years with 3 years reserve. It is his case that just to make his services non -pensionable, the authorities have terminated him in violation of law and applicable rules by issuing provisional discharge certificate, which prejudice his right and there is violation of principle of natural justice. It is also stated by him that as per directions of the Army Head Quarter, punishment should not be harsh while taking an action of discharge especially when the person concerned is about to complete pensionable service and that discharge should be ordered only when it is considered absolutely necessary in the interest of services.