KRISHAN RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner is seeking quashing the order dated 16.9.1987, Annexure P-5, passed by respondent No. 4, whereby he was prematurely discharged from service with effect from 27.7.1987 with a further direction to the respondent to take him back in service.

(2.) In brief, the case of the petitioner is that Commander 33 Artillery Brigade on 4.1.1987 had given direction to respondent No. 6, Commanding Officer 155 Medium Regiment, to send the petitioner on discharge, as a result thereof, the petitioner on 5.1.1987 was made to sign a typed application by his Battery Commander seeking premature discharge from the Army on some non-existing domestic problems. The application was duly processed by the Unit on that very date. The Brigade Commander had written demi-official letter to respondent No. 4 Officer-in-Charge Artillery Records to speed up the discharge of the petitioner. Consequently, on 2.7.1987, the petitioner was despatched from the Unit to proceed to the Artillery Records for his discharge. It is further averred that the petitioner then feeling free of the official pressure of respondents 5 and 6, addressed an application on 2.7.1987 against his premature release, to the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister, Chief of the Army Staff and Chief Records Officer Artillery Records, and despatched the same by registered post from the Campt Post Office at Favidkot before leaving that station. Said application was duly acknowledged by the Prima Minister's office on 8.7.1987.

(3.) The petitioner was discharged from military service on 27.7.1987. No reply to his application dated 2.7.1987 had been received earlier than the date of his discharge. Directorate General of Artillery Army Headquarters, vide his letter No. A/10/147/111/132 Arty. 3 dated 26.8.1987 (Annexure P-3) had asked the Artillery Records (Respondent No. 4) as to the action taken on the petitioner's application dated 2.7.1987, Annexure P-1, and it was then only that a reply was received under 33 Artillery Brigade letter No. 30361/32/A dated 11.9.1987, Annexure P-4, containing recommendations of respondent No. 6. All these smack of the bias attitude of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The application of the petitioner dated 2.7.1987 was finally disposed of by the Records on 16.9.1987 declining to reinstate him in service. Mr. K.S.Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner's application praying the respondents not to discharge him prematurely was received by the respondents before he was discharged from service on 27.7.1987. Since the petitioner had withdrawn his request for discharge before the same was acceded, therefore, he could not have been discharged from service.