RAJENDRA KUMAR PATE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of his discharge dated 23-8-1988 (Annexure 6) passed under Rule 13 (3) of the Army Rules (for short 'the Rules') framed under Section 191 (2) (a) of the Army Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act' ).

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are these. The petitioner was enrolled as Combatant recruit, after giving answers to the questions put by the Assistant Returning Officer, H. Q. Zonal Office, Sidhi in the prescribed form (Annexure R-1 ). The petitioner was temporarily selected and was sent for physical training at 3 EME First Battalion Centre, Bairagarh, Bhopal, for a period of six months. After completing physical training he was sent for Trade training of Vehicle Mechanic where he remained till 19-9-1987. On completion of the successful training, the petitioner was granted Certificate of Proficiency by the Commandant, Officer Commanding 2nd Training Battalion, 3 EME Centre, Bhopal (Annexure A) and then the petitioner was posted on 30-9-1987 as Vehicle Mechanic. 2. On receipt of the verification report from the Civil authorities, it came to the knowledge that the petitioner, on the specific question put to him, suppressed the true information and answered that he is not involved in any criminal case, while on verification it revealed that the petitioner was arrested and charge sheet was filed against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa for the offences under Sections 147, 451, 294, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Crime No. 12/85 by Police-Station Gurh, district Rewa. Therefore, at the time of attestation as prescribed under Section 17 of the Act, the petitioner was not attested and reported as fit for duty and was discharged vide Annexure G, by the Commanding Officer in accordance with item (iv) of table annexed to Rule 13 (3) of the Rules.

(3.) SHRI M. L. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the offences charged against him were not of moral turpitude, therefore, he did not give the information of pendency of the criminal case. Not only this, on compromise, the petitioner was acquitted of the charge vide judgment dated 29-12-1987 (Annexure B ). Hence, the petitioner could not have been discharged from his service. Moreover it was the duty of the Enrolling Officer or the respondent to have verified the correctness of the information furnished, but that was not done. On the other hand, the petitioner was allowed to continue to work till 23-8-1988 in spite of the fact that remarks relating to criminal prosecution were given by the Superintendent of Police, Rewa on 11-11-1986 in Annexure R-1 and the said Civil Officer sent a letter (Annexure R-2) dated 2-12-1986 to the District Magistrate, Rewa that the petitioner has suppressed the information relating to his antecedents hence he is not fit to be appointed in Government service. The order of discharge is penal in nature and is without affording an opportunity of hearing violative of the principles of natural justice, hence is liable to be quashed; reliance was placed on the decisions reported in Chaukas Ram v. Sub-Area Commander, Allahabad and Anr. , (1991) Lab. I. C. 1056 (All.) and T. V. Thampan v. Adjunct General Discipline and Vigilance Directorate Branch Army Head Quarters, New Delhi, (1994) Lab. I. C. 599 (Ker.)