SUBHAS CHANDRA BASU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject-matter of challenge in the instant writ petition is an order of discharge issued by the Commanding Officer, Workshop Training Institute, Indian Air Force, Tambaram, Madras being Memo No. IAFF(P) 53 discharging the petitioner from service of the Indian Air Force, under Rule 15 (k) of the Indian Force Rules.

(2.) The facts relevant to the present case are as follows : The petitioner applied for an employment under the Indian Air Force in the category of airmen. Pursuant to the said application the petitioner was called to appear for preliminary screening test which is a written examination and having succeeded in the same he was further called to appear for final selection rest which is also written test, which the petitioner also duly qualified. Thereafter, the petitioner was called at an interview by the Squadron Leader and succeeded in the interview. The petitioner was also found medically fit by the Recruiting Medical officer after thorough medical examination and was declared fit for appointment as airmen. Thereafter the petitioner was sent to Tambaram at Madras to undergo a training for a period of 15 months, the first part of which is physical training. After completion of a part of training while the petitioner was undergoing the rest of the period of training, he was served with the purported order of discharge on 21st May, 1986 discharging the petitioner from service on the ground of unsuitability of the petitioner for retention in the force. The petitioner was so discharged without holding any disciplinary enquiry and no charge-sheet was given to him. He was never given any reasonable opportunity of hearing although according to the petitioner he is entitled to hearing under the provisions of the Air Force Act and Rules made thereunder. Although the petitioner was discharged on the ground of unsuitability no reason was disclosed as to how he was found unsuitable. According to the petitioner there cannot be any basis for holding the petitioner to be unsuitable for retention in the Air Force and the order of discharge has been passed in colourable exercise of power illegally and arbitrarily. Although the petitioner made a representation to the Commanding Officer against the aforesaid order of discharge requesting the Commanding Officer to disclose the reasons for his alleged unsuitability, such representation was of no avail and the respondents never disclosed any ground as to such alleged unsuitability. According to the petitioner the impugned order of discharge is also in violation of provision of the Air Force Act and Rules inasmuch as none of the conditions upon which an order of discharge can be made was fulfilled in the instant case and the impugned order is also in violation of the Article 16 of the Constitution.

(3.) The stand of the respondents as it would appear from the affidavit-in-opposition, is that the order of discharge of the petitioner was quite valid and proper ; that as a matter of routine, before a recruit is sent for training, his antecedents are verified and during such verification it transpired that the petitioner's actual date of birth was 20th January, 1957 which was suppressed by the petitioner and he made a false declaration by declaring his date of birth as fat November, 1965 at the time of enrolment and therefore, the petitioner at the time of his recruitment was about 29 years of age and accordingly he was unsuitable to be retained in the Air Force as he was not in the range of 16 to 20 years age group which is the pre-condition of enrolment as per paragraph 241(a) of the Air Force Regulation. Further contention of the respondents is that petitioner was issued with an oral Show Cause to which he submitted his reply being Annexure 'Z2' to the affidavit-in-opposition, which was considered by a Review Board and was rejected and the petitioner, therefore, had an ample opportunity of hearing.