INDRADIP RAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the order of discharge from Army Services, issued vide order, as contained in annexure 2 dated 26.7.1984.

(2.) IT is submitted by Mr. K.N. Choubey, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was inducted in Army services as a Sepoy with effect from 29.4.1982 and during his continuance a verification report was sent to the Army Headquarters showing his involvement in a criminal case and the authorities on the basis of the verification report discharged the petitioner from services with effect from 26.7.1984. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was not the named accused in the first information report, and, therefore, at the time of his entry in services on 29.4.1982 he had not given a declaration as to whether he is facing a criminal charge and even assuming that on the basis of verification report, a criminal case was detected, the authorities could have given him a notice to explain as to why he should not be discharged from services for non -disclosure of the fact about his involvement in the criminal case. But, in the instant case, no opportunity, whatsoever, was given to the petitioner before passing of the order of discharge. It is also submitted that it would appear from annexure 2 that the petitioner has been discharged under Rule 13(3)(iv) of the Army Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules"), which, prima facie, shows that the aforesaid provision was not applicable in the case of the petitioner, as he had never requested the authority to discharge him. Mr. Choubey, learned senior counsel, further submitted that in the aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted on 24.4.1992, and, accordingly, he represented his case before the respondent authorities for cancellation of the order of discharge, but his representation was rejected on the ground that he had suppressed the material fact about his involvement in the criminal case at the time of his entry.

(3.) THOUGH a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, nowhere it is stated in reply to the statement made in the writ application that any sort of opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain his conduct before passing of the order of discharge.