RAVINDRA NATH TRIPATHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 27/7/2000 (Annexure P/2), whereby, in compliance of the order dtd. 31/7/2000, the petitioner was issued a certificate of discharged from the regular Air Force Service. He has also questioned the constitutionality of Sec. 82, 83, 84 and 86 of the Air Force Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1950) and Rule 24 and 31 of the Air Force Rules 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1969") being ultra vires and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; Sec. 50(b) of the Air Force Act, 1950 being ultra vires and in violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Air Force Rules, 1969 being ultra vires and in violation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The facts of the case in short are that the petitioner was enrolled in Indian Air Force on 22/10/1990 on the rank of Corporal, at No.2216 Squadron, Air Force C/o 56 APO. The petitioner was served with a warning dtd. 21/6/1999 (Annx.P/5) of "Potential Habitual Offenders". It was stated in notice that since the petitioner was at the threshold of falling in the category of Habitual Offender, hence he was cautioned and counselled to mend himself and desist from acts of indiscipline and was also warned that any additional punishment will render him liable for discharge from service under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Rules of 1969.

(3.) It is also seen from the facts that on 27/3/2000 (Annx.P/3), a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner stating that during his total service of 09 years and 2 months as on 31/12/1999, he was summarily tried and punished on as many as six occasions. All were "Red Ink" entries. Out of which, two "Red Ink" entries were not considered which were awarded for refusal to take part in "SHRAMDAN", therefore, only four "Red Ink" entries were being considered. It was also stated that despite warning notice dtd. 21/6/1999, the petitioner indulged in an act of indiscipline on 13/11/1999 and on 15/12/1999, therefore, he was awarded "Reprimand" for the said act on 31/12/1999. It was further stated that the perusal of conduct sheet of the petitioner indicated that he was a poor airman material and not amenable to the service discipline. Taking into consideration the aforesaid acts of indiscipline, the petitioner was directed to show cause as to why he should not be discharged from service under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Rules of 1969. In the said show- cause notice dtd. 27/3/2000 (Annx.P/3) "Red Ink" entries earned by the petitioner upto 31/12/1999 were taken into consideration. However, on 13/3/2000 (Annex.P-7), the petitioner was awarded one more "Red Ink" entry for absenting himself from duty from 1330 Hours on 24/8/1999 till he reported back to Main Guard Room at 0030 hours on 21/9/1999 (Total absence 27 days and 11 hours) which, however, is not the part of show cause notice, neither the same was considered for his discharge.