UNION OF INDIA Vs. NAIK GULSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Whether an Army personnel (person subject to the Army Act, 1950) awarded four red ink entries during his service, is to be compulsorily discharge under Rule 13(3) Army Rules 1954?" is the question raised in these three Letters Patent Appeal. If stand taken by learned counsel for the appellants is sustained, the Authority competent to sanction discharge of an Army personnel has no option but to order discharge in the event, he has earned four red ink entries during his service. Before embarking on an exercise to find an answer to the question raised, it would be appropriate to summarize the facts.

(2.) Naik Gulshan Singh, respondent in LPASW No.35/2009 enrolled in Indian Army as Sepoy in the year 1990, was inducted into 5 JAK Light Infantry and promoted to the rank of Naik in April, 1999. The respondent in March, 2002, while performing his duties at Nandpur, Tehsil Samba, unauthorizedly left his Unit at about 6.am to visit his relatives at Arina and reported back to his duty at 8 am. His unauthorized absence from duty was viewed seriously and after show cause notice, the act of the respondent was found uncondonable as the respondent had already been awarded five red ink entries and two black ink entries during his service. After serving army for 12 years, the respondent was discharged vide order dated 22nd April, 2002 by the Commanding Officer in the exercise of powers under Rule 13 (3) III (v) Army Rules 1954. The respondent assailed the discharge order through medium of writ petition registered as SWP No.324/2003. The writ petition was allowed on 2nd December, 2008 and the discharge order quashed.

(3.) Rifleman Arvind Singh, respondent in LPASW No.71 /2009 was enrolled in Indian Army on 27th February, 1988, posted to 20 Rajasthan Rifle on 20th March, 1989. The respondent earned four red ink entries during his service career spreading over a period of 12 years and was awarded punishment of denial of promotion, 14 days rigorous imprisonment and 28 days rigorous imprisonment on said counts of his misconduct. Having regard to repeated acts of indiscipline, a preliminary enquiry was ordered, show cause notice served on the respondent and finally the Competent Authority on due consideration of the matter, ordered discharge of the respondent in exercise of powers under Rule 13 (3) III (v) Army Rules, 1954 vide order dated 5th May, 2000. The respondent questioned the discharge order in the writ petition registered as SWP No. 1045/2001. The writ petition was allowed on 11th February, 2009 and the discharge order set aside.