SUBASH CHANDER Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was recruited and enrolled in the Army i.e 4 JAK LI as Rifleman on 17th of June, 2000 and continued up to July, 2005 through the medium of instant petition, seeks quashment of order dated 28th of July, 2005 (impugned herein) issued by Commanding Officer, 4JAKLI (respondent No. 2 herein) whereby he has been discharged from Army service on the ground of fraudulent enrolment, inasmuch as, he tampered his date of birth as 21st of June, 1979 instead of 21st of June, 1978 so as to overcome the hurdle of being overage at the time of his enrolment in the Army, which fact, subsequently came to the notice of the Army Authority, in turn, forwarded the mark sheet of the petitioner to Secretary J&K Board of School Education, Jammu for verification, in response thereto, the Secretary/Board issued verification certificate bearing No. F(Veri-B)JD/4 dated 2nd Dec. 2004 wherein the correct date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 21st of June, 1978. A copy of the mark sheet and the verification certificate are annexed with the reply filed by the respondents as Annexures R-I & R-II. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice by the Commander 56 Mountain Bde vide letter No. 9104704/case/A dated 6th of July, 2005, photostat copy whereof is annexed with the reply filed by the respondents. The petitioner admitted his fault and begged pardon. That com munication, in verna cular, is also annexed with the reply.

(2.) Considering the case of the petitioner as of grave nature, it was recom mended for discharge from the service under Army Rule 13(3) Item-III(v) by Commanding Officer, 4 JAK LI which has ultimately been approved by the Com mander, 56-Mountain Bde, the competent Authority on 22nd of July, 2005 and finally, the petitioner was discharged from service w.e.f 28th of July, 2005.

(3.) It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the lis, the petitioner moved a miscellaneous application bearing CMA No. 3902/2010 for placing on record supplementary affidavit which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 07-12-2010. In the supplementary affidavit, the petitioner asserts that the respondents have removed him from the service arbitrarily and trying to build a case on the basis of forged document i.e the petitioner was given show cause notice and that he had admitted his guilt also. Mr. Pangotra, learned ASGI, has not responded to this supplementary affidavit, but produced the entire record for perusal of the Court.