1

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

O.A.No.68 of 2012

Friday, the 19th day of April, 2013

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH

(MEMBER - JUDICIAL) AND

THE HONOURABLE LT GEN (RETD) ANAND MOHAN VERMA (MEMBER – ADMINISTRATIVE)

No. 2610215W Ex Sep A Karunai Udaiyarajan

S/o Shri Arumugam

Selvanayagapuram Village Venneervailkal (Post) – 623 04

Muthukulathur Taluk Ramanathapuram District

Tamil Nadu. … Applicant

By Legal Practitioner: Mr. V. Parthiban for M/s. Ayyar&Iyer

Vs.

1. Union of India, - Represented by

The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence,

South Block, DHQ (PO)

New Delhi - 110011.

2. The General Officer Commanding in Chief Headquarters

Southern Command Pune - 411 001.

3. The Commandant

Madras Regimental Centre Wellington – 643 231

(The Nilgiris) … Respondents

By Mr.B.Shanthakumar, SPC

2

ORDER

(Order of the Tribunal made by Hon’ble Justice V.PeriyaKaruppiah, Member-Judicial)

1. This application has been filed by the applicant praying for a direction

to call for the records in respect of the proceedings No.A/2406002/525/DV-3

dated 30.11.2011, issued under the signature of 2nd respondent and

forwarded by 3rd respondent in the letter dated 31.1.2012 arising out

unactioned and returned non-statutory petition of February, 2011 and to

quash the same and to further lift the regimental veil in not considering the

statutory petition dated 22.12.2011 filed under Section-164 of the Army Act

and also to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service with

all consequential and attendant benefits in the substantial interest of equity

and fairness within the time limit and also to pass suitable other directions.

2. The case of the applicant as stated in the application would be as

follows :-

The applicant was enrolled as a Sepoy in the Madras Regiment on

26.6.2002. After undergoing training, he was posted to 27 MADRAS. He

was further re-posted to 54, Rashtriya Rifle till 2007. On 5.8.2007, the

applicant was granted 64 days of annual leave commenced from 6.8.2007 to

3

8.10.2007. The applicant left home on 4.10.2007 to rejoin duty. When he

was travelling in a bus from Madurai to Chennai, when he checked his

baggages at Trichy bus station, the suitcase containing his Identity Card was

found missing and he was worried about the punishment in the unit for the

loss of Identity Card and, therefore, he was hesitant to go to unit and did

not also want to go back home. When he was sitting in the bus stand at

Chennai, one of the passengers took him to Salem for a job and the

applicant worked with one Vel Murugan Drillers Borewells vehicle,

Thiruchenkodu, as a helper till 4.3.2010. However, his mother lodged a

complaint about the missing of son with the local Police Station at

Muthukulathur. The applicant had spoken to his uncle about his position and

since his uncle told him to return back home, he took leave with Vel

Murugan Drillers Borewells vehicle on 5.3.2010 and reached his native place

Selvanayagapuram, where his parents and relatives reside. On 8.3.2010 at

7.00 P.M., the Muthukulathur Police apprehended the applicant on the basis

of his mother’s complaint and on the next day they took him to Tiruchy and

handed over to the Territorial Army Battalion. Thereafter, the applicant was

subject to Summary Court Martial on 2.1.2011 for over-staying leave and

losing Identity Card. The charges were framed against the applicant under

Section-39(b) and 54(b) of the Army Act for over-staying the leave and for

the loss of Identity Card, respectively. After the examination of the

witnesses in the Summary Court Martial, the applicant was asked to make a

4

statement in terms of Army Rules 23(1), (2), (3) and (4). The applicant

realised his mistake and accepted his guilt and sought pardon and requested

to consider his case sympathetically and he may be retained his service.

However, the request of the applicant was not accepted, but the extreme

penalty of dismissal of service was imposed by the 3rd respondent. The

applicant was graded exemplary, but for the allegations tried in Summary

Court Martial. The said conviction and sentence for the aforesaid offences

were issued under the signature of NS Rao, Officiating Adjutant for

Officiating Commandant, the Madras Regimental Centre. The said Officer

was well below the rank of Brigade Commander and not competent to issue

the impugned proceedings. During the recording of evidence, the

depositions were not interpreted and the signatures were not obtained. The

applicant preferred a non-statutory petition to the 2nd respondent against

the impugned sentence during February, 2011, but it was sent without

signature due to inadvertence. The said petition was immediately returned

by 2nd respondent as unactioned in its proceedings dated 25.2.2011, and the

said petition was not re-submitted to any authorities. However, he had sent

a statutory petition dated 22.12.2011 under Section-164 of Army Act, for

just consideration and orders. The 2nd respondent, after getting the said

petition, innocuously rejected the application unactioned dated February,

2011, by stating that orders were passed in the statutory petition sent

during February, 2011 on 30.11.2011. The said action of the respondents is

5

a clear after-thought and short-circuiting the rule of law. The respondents

might have conspired to reject the claim of the applicant and the said

conspiracy should be brought to light by piercing the regimental veil of the

respondents. The applicant sent a representation on 9.2.2012 to the 2nd

respondent marking a copy to 3rd respondent immediately on receipt of the

impugned proceedings dated 30.11.2011 received on 31.1.2012. There was

no response from the 2nd respondent. The applicant is aggrieved and

constrained to approach this Tribunal for quashing the impugned

proceedings and to issue necessary directions to the respondents to

reinstate the applicant into service with all attendant and consequential

benefits. The application may thus be allowed.

3. The objections raised by the respondents in the Counter would be as

follows :-

The applicant was no doubt enrolled in the Army and was granted

leave as stated in the application. For over-staying without sufficient cause

and for losing the Identity Card by neglect, he was tried by a Summary

Court Martial. The charge-sheet was handed over to the applicant on

28.1.2011 and the Summary Court Martial was held on 2.2.2011. The

accused pleaded guilty to both the charges. Apart from that, the trial was

conducted and after due compliance of Army Rule-115(2), the Officer

holding the trial, found the applicant guilty and he was sentenced to be

6

dismissed from service. The sentence was also promulgated on the same

day. The applicant submitted a petition during February, 2011, addressed to

GOC-in-C, Southern Command, and the said petition was returned to the

applicant on 25.2.2011. Since no petition was received under Army Act

Section-164(2) even after a period of one month, HQ Southern Command,

asked to process the case and accordingly the documents were forwarded to

HQ ATNK & K Area (DV) vide Madras Regimental Centre letter dated

2.6.2011, who in turn, forwarded to HQ Southern Command, through their

letter dated 16.6.2011. GOC-in-C, Southern Command, rejected the petition

in a reasoned order. The directions of GOC-in-C were received at Madras

Regimental Centre on 15.12.2011. However, a second petition dated

22.12.2011 was sent by the applicant. But directions were received by

Madras Regimental Centre even before that petition. A courier was sent by

Madras Regimental Centre for handing over the direction of GOC-in-C and

the applicant was not available at his home and, therefore, he was

subsequently informed at the work place on 28.12.2011. The applicant

avoided signing the documents on one pretext or other. Therefore, the copy

of directions were forwarded to him through Registered Post on 31.1.2012.

This would show that the directions of GOC-in-C were initiated even before

the second petition submitted by the applicant. As the second petition was

initiated after the rejection of the first petition, it was returned to the

applicant through a letter of Madras Regimental Centre dated 21.2.2012,

7

since only one petition under Army Act Section-164(2) could be filed. The

applicant was granted 64 days annual leave from 6.8.2007 to 8.10.2007.

The applicant’s case that he left home on 4.10.2007 was contradicted by his

mother’s statement in her complaint to Superintendent of Police by stating

that he left home on 6.10.2007 only. In a Habeas Corpus petition filed by

the mother before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, she said that

the applicant stayed with her till 6.10.2007. Therefore, the case of the

applicant that he started from home on 4.10.2007 and travelled in a bus

where he lost the suitcase containing Identity Card could not be true. It is

pertinent to note that the applicant pleaded guilty during the trial and he

had not cross-examined the witnesses and had conceded the guilt. The

Court found him guilty and accordingly sentenced him to be dismissed from

service. The said conviction and sentence passed against the applicant are

quite legal and as per rules. The Adjutant/Officiating Adjutant is competent

to sign the promulgation order and it is, therefore, not illegal. The

procedures as contemplated under Army Rules were scrupulously followed.

The recording of evidence was also done properly and there would be no

requirement of signature of the interpreter since the independent witness

signed in the proceedings. The punishment awarded by the Summary Court

Martial is just and legal and proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The

applicant had proved himself as an indisciplined solder by not only over-

staying leave on two occasions without any justification and also lost his

8

Identity Card. He had also worked with private persons by over-staying the

leave and this would show the indiscipline of the applicant. No injustice has

been done by the respondents in awarding the dismissal order. The Army is

a disciplined organization and illegal absence of almost 2½ years is not

acceptable in the organization. The applicant was dismissed from service

after following all the legal procedures. Therefore, there is no necessity to

interfere in the conviction and the sentence passed by the Summary Court

Martial and also in rejecting the statutory petition filed during February,

2011 by the applicant, confirming the conviction and punishment given by

the Summary Court Martial. Therefore, the application may be dismissed as

devoid of merits.

4. On the above pleadings, the following points were framed for

consideration :-

1) Whether the impugned Order dated 30.11.2011 signed by the

2nd respondent, which was forwarded by the 3rd respondent in its

letter dated 31.1.2012, is liable to be quashed ?

2) Whether the statutory petition dated 22.12.2011 filed under

Section-164 of the Army Act, ought to have been considered by

the 2nd respondent ?

9

3) Whether the applicant is entitled for reinstatement into service

with all consequential and attendant benefits ?

4) To what relief the applicant is entitled for ?

5. Heard Mr. V. Parthiban for M/s. Ayyar & Iyer, Learned Counsel for the

applicant and Mr. B. Shanthakumar, Learned Senior Panel Counsel assisted

by Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, Learned JAG Officer, appearing for the respondents.

6. The Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit in his argument

that the applicant was enrolled in Madras Regiment on 26.6.2002. While he

was in service, he was granted 64 days of annual leave with effect from

6.8.2007 to 8.10.2007 and after completion of the leave, he has started to

rejoin duty and while he was on his way to Chennai in a Madurai to Chennai

bound bus, he lost his suitcase at Tiruchy bus stand in which his Identity

Card was placed. He would also submit that since the applicant was scared

of punishment for losing the Identity Card, he was hesistant to either go

over to the unit to join duty or to return home and while he was sitting at

Chennai bus stand, he was taken by one of the passengers to Salem for a

job in Velmurugan Drillers Borewells vehicle, Thiruchenkodu, where he

worked till 4.3.2010. he would also submit that he was apprehended by the

Muthukulathur Police on the complaint of his mother when he was at his

native place on 8.3.2010 and was handed over to the Territorial Army

10

Battalion and from there he was taken to his unit and the Summary Court

Martial proceedings have been initiated on two charges, namely under

Section-39(b) of Army Act for over-staying leave granted to him and under

Section-54(b) of Army Act for losing by neglect the Identity Card, which is

the property of the Government issued to him for his use. The applicant had

pleaded guilty on the fond hope that he would be given lesser punishment

and would be ordered reinstatement in the service, but his request was not

heeded but a punishment of dismissal from service was ordered against him.

He would also submit that the applicant had submitted a non-statutory

petition dated February, 2011, before the competent authority against the

punishment of dismissal from service, but it was returned unactioned since it

was unsigned by the applicant. However, the applicant had submitted yet

another statutory petition under Section-164 of the Army Act on

22.12.2011. But it was rejected as if the petition submitted during

February, 2011, was ordered on 30.11.2011 and the 2nd petition was not

sustainable since there was already a statutory petition filed by the

applicant. He would submit in his argument that the said Order dated

30.11.2011 was unscrupulously cooked up for the purpose of rejecting the

statutory petition dated 22.12.2011. In the said statutory petition dated

22.12.2011, the applicant had elaborately challenged the verdict of

Summary Court Martial and the 2nd respondent rejected the said petition

since those points should have embarrassed him. He would also submit that

11

the rejection of the statutory petition dated 22.12.2011 moved under

Section-164 of the Army Act, should have been set aside and thereby the

dismissal order passed by the Summary Court Martial should consequentially

be set aside and the applicant be reinstated in service. He would further

submit that the mandatory provisions of convening Summary Court Martial

were not followed and the Summary Court Martial had exceeded its powers.

The punishment under Section-39(d) of Army Act for absence without leave

could be a maximum period of three years imprisonment or such less

punishment as defined in the Act. But the larger punishment of dismissal

from service was imposed for the absence without leave. He would further

submit that the other procedures for translation of evidence and recording of

findings on conviction, promulgation of verdict have not been followed by

the Summary Court Martial as slated in the statute (Army Act, 1950). He

would also submit that the character of the applicant was exemplary and he

was not able to rejoin army after the expiry of the leave granted to him

owing to the reasons as stated in the application and there was any

unwillingness on the part of the applicant to serve in the army. He would

further submit in his argument that the rejection of the statutory petition

filed under Section-164 of the Army Act was ordered with a malafide

intention and the earlier order passed on 30.11.2011 was a cooked-up one

on an unactioned petition already returned by the 2nd respondent and on

that score itself the impugned order passed on 30.11.2011 on the

12

application dated February, 2011, and the rejection of the statutory petition

dated 22.12.2011 ought to have been set aside and the verdict pronounced

in the Summary Court Martial be consequently set aside and the applicant

may be ordered to be reinstated in service.

7. Learned Senior Panel Counsel, would submit in his argument that the

applicant himself admitted that he lost his Identity Card during transit from

Madurai to Chennai at Tiruchy bus stand. This would show that the

applicant was not pursuing his carrier or loss of his Identity Card since he

did not give any Police complaint immediately. Per contra, he had neither

proceeded to the work place nor to his house, but went with some stranger

to Salem for undertaking a job and worked for three years. He would also

submit that the mother of the applicant had given a complaint to

Muthukulathur Police wherein she has stated that the applicant was missing

from the native place and he was with her till 6.10.2007 during his annual

leave. However, the applicant had detailed in his application that he started

from his native place on 4.10.2007 in order to rejoin service after the expiry

of leave which would palpably be a falsehood. He would also submit that the

Order passed in the first statutory petition which was unsigned by the

applicant was bonafide disposed of by the competent authority on

30.11.2011. The said order passed by the competent authority was sent

through a courier by Madras Regimental Centre, who approached the

13

applicant at his home address initially, subsequently at the place of work on

28.12.2011 for obtaining signature. But the applicant was avoiding signing

documents on one pretention or other and, therefore, a Registered Post was

sent on 31.1.2012 in order to inform the order passed in the statutory

petition dated February, 2011. Therefore, he would submit that the order

was not a hatched one on seeing the second petition of the applicant dated

22.12.2011. He would further submit that the applicant does not deserve to

be reinstated in service and he was rightly dismissed from service for the

negligence of losing his Identity Card as well as the inaction on the part of

the applicant for not tracing the said Identity Card. He would further submit

that the applicant was merrily working in Tiruchenkodu, Salem District,

without thinking of rejoining service for nearly three years and he was not,

therefore, entitled to ask for reinstatement. He would further submit that

the applicant could not pinpoint the defects of the Summary Court Martial

proceedings as it was done properly in accordance with law. Especially when

the applicant had pleaded guilty, even though there was no need to examine

witnesses, the witnesses speaking about the circumstances of arresting the

applicant and for bringing him from the place of arrest to the Court Martial

were adduced in evidence and the verdict was given on the basis of the

pleading guilty by the applicant and the corroborative evidence. He would

further submit that the competent authority was right in dismissing the

statutory petition filed in February, 2011, upholding the procedure followed

14

by the Summary Court Martial as correct. The confirming of the verdict was

also not liable to be set aside. He would further submit that the rejection of

the second statutory petition was also not assailable since an earlier order

was passed already in the application dated February, 2011 based upon the

photocopy retained by the respondent. He would, therefore, submit that

there could not be any discrimination against the applicant nor any violation

of Articles 17, 21 and 41 of the Constitution of India. He would further

submit that if for any reason the applicant is reinstated, it would be a bad

precedent for other soldiers since the applicant had lost his Identity Card

and proved himself as a bad example and abstained from service by over

staying for a period of more than 2½ years. He would, therefore, submit

that the application may be dismissed as devoid of merits.

8. We have given anxious considerations to the arguments advanced on

either side.

9. Points 1 to 3: The case of the applicant that he was enrolled in the

Army in the year 2002 and while serving as a Soldier, he was granted leave

from 6.8.2007 to 8.10.2007, and he started from his native place on

4.10.2007 to join his duty, but he had lost his Identity Card at Tiruchy bus

stand when his suitcase was stolen and, therefore, he could not join duty nor

return to his native place and, therefore, he had over-stayed the leave

15

granted, were not entirely admitted by the respondents. According to the

applicant, the applicant was hesitant to return home owing to the loss of

Identity Card and, therefore, he accompanied a person of Salem, who

promised him to give a job at Vel Murugan Drillers Borewells vehicle,

Thiruchenkodu, Salem District. The applicant had admitted in his application

that he worked at Thiruchenkodu till 4.3.2010. Therefore, it is very clear

that the applicant did not disclose his place of employment or his

wherebaouts either to his home or to the unit, where he was serving. If

really the applicant had lost the Identity Card in Tiruchy bus stand, he ought

to have given a Police complaint as a dutiful soldier of the Indian Army. No

explanation has been offered by the applicant for not giving such a

complaint with the Police. The case of the applicant that he left the village

on 4.10.2007 to join duty was falsified by the complaint given by his mother

that the applicant was staying with her at the native village till 6.10.2007.

Similarly, in a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the mother of the applicant

before Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, she stated that the applicant

was staying with her till 6.10.2007 and thereafter, he vanished. Such

contentions raised by the respondents in the Counter were not retracted nor

shown as wrong by the applicant. In the said circumstances, we could

presume that the discrepancy in the date of leaving the native place

Vasudevanallur by the applicant on 4.10.2007, has not been explained and,

therefore, it cannot be believed.

16

10. It is not disputed that the applicant was apprehended at his native

village on 8.3.2010 when he visited his native place at the request of his

maternal uncle on 4.3.2010. After apprehension by the Muthukulathur

Police, he was handed over to Tiruchy Territorial Army Battalion and thus he

was brought to unit and Summary Court Martial proceedings have been

initiated. After the initiation of Summary Court Martial proceedings, the

applicant was proceeded on two charges under Section-39(b) and 54(b) of

the Army Act on the following charges :-

“First Charge under Army Act Sec 39(b) :-

“WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE OVERSTAYING LEAVE

GRANTED TO HIM” – in that he

At field, on 06 Aug 2007, having been granted leave of absence

from 06 Aug 2007 to 08 Octo 2007 to proceed to his home,

failed without sufficient cause, to rejoing at 54 Rashtriya Rifles

(MADRAS) on 08 Octo 2007 (AN) on expiry of said leave and

remained so absent till he was apprehended by HC-71 Muthaiah

and Grd 1517 A Murugesn of Mudukalathur Police station,

Ramanathapuram-District on 09 Mar 2010 at 1015 hrs and

handed over to 117 Inf Bn (TA) The Guards on 09 March 2010 at

1310 hrs, who further handed him over to No 2590940Y Hav Anil

17

Kumar PC of the Madras Regimental Centre on 17 Mar 2010 at

1800hrs.

Second Charge Army Act Sec 54(b):

“LOSING BY NEGLECT IDENTITY CARD THE PROPERTY OF

GOVERNMENT ISSUED TO HIM FOR HIS USE” – In that he, at

Madurai on 05 Oct 2007 while traveling by bus from Madurai to

Chennai, negligently lost his Identity Card bearing machine No.

E-594898, the property of the Government, issued to him for his

use.”

The applicant had pleaded guilty on both the charges. The

apprehension of the applicant and the production of the applicant with the

Territorial Army Battalion at Tiruchy and the production of the applicant

before the unit had been spoken by the prosecution witnesses 1 to 3. The

Officer presiding over the Summary Court Martial after considering all the

evidence and circumstances and the pleading guilty by the applicant, had

passed an order of conviction and punishment of dismissal from service.

The relevant records regarding the Summary Court Martial have been

produced. On a careful perusal of those records, the convening of Summary

Court Martial and the conduct of the proceedings, framing of charges,

recording of evidence, pleading of the accused, conduct of every

18

proceedings, pronouncement of verdict were found to be in accordance with

law.

11. The contention raised by the applicant was that the dismissal from

service imposed against the applicant as a punishment was not

contemplated under Section-39(d) of the Army Act and it is a higher

punishment than the punishment mentioned in the said Section. For better

appreciation of the contention, the provision of Section-39(d) of Army Act, is

necessarily to be extracted :-

12. In the said provision, we could see that the maximum period of

imprisonment to be imposed for an offences under Section-39(b) of the

Army Act would be three years or any other lesser punishment as

contemplated in the Act. As regards the punishment of dismissal from

service, it has been provided under Section-71(e) of the Army Act. Could

the punishment of dismissal be higher punishment than three years

punishment ? The contention raised by the applicant was that the dismissal

from service is a higher punishment than the imprisonment of three years.

On a careful perusal of the construction of Section-71 of the Army Act, the

punishment listed in Section-71(a) to (e) is in a descending order in which

the dismissal from service is arranged after the death sentence and

imprisonment provisions. Therefore, it can not be said that the dismissal

from service is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges against the

applicant.

19

13. The conduct of the Summary Court Martial was dealt by the competent

authority in the statutory petition filed by the applicant during February,

2011. It is an admitted case that the applicant had presented a statutory

petition of February, 2011, without putting a specific date and without

putting his signature. The said application was photocopied according to the

respondents and was retained by them. The case of the applicant was that

it was returned unactioned and it was also evidenced by a letter written by

the applicant. However, there was an order passed by the competent

authority by confirming the sentence passed by the Summary Court Martial

on 30.11.2011. The specific case of the applicant was that the application

was returned unactioned and, therefore, it should not be considered by the

competent authority as a statutory petition to be filed under Section-164.

Similarly, he would also plead that the said order dated 30.11.2011 was

passed only after the receipt of the second statutory petition sent by him on

22.12.2011 and, therefore, it was a cooked-up order. The contention of the

respondents was that the applicant had evaded the receipt of the order

passed on 30.11.2011 when it was sent by courier even before the date of

his second statutory petition and knowing full well that an order was passed

on the photocopy of the earlier application he sent, the second statutory

petition, which was not in time, was sent by the applicant. Considering the

facts and circumstances, we could understand that the earlier petition filed

by the applicant during February, 2011, was without signature and without a

20

specific date in February, 2011. No doubt, it was sent by the applicant and

it was returned as unactioned by the 2nd respondent. However, the 2nd

respondent had taken up the said petition as a statutory petition since there

was no reply from the applicant, by sending the said petition by putting his

signature in the unactioned statutory petition within a reasonable time of

one month and an order was passed. When a statutory petition has not

been filed and on reference by the Summary Court Martial, the competent

authority is empowered to confirm the sentence imposed by the Summary

Court Martial under Section-153 of Army Act. Therefore, the order passed

on the unsigned application sent by the applicant for the confirmation of the

sentence passed by the Summary Court Martial cannot be challenged by the

applicant as it was not sent by him or it was returned as unactioned.

Moreover, the second statutory petition was sent by the applicant after a

long gap without any reason on 22.12.2011. By that time, the competent

authority authorized under Section-153 and 164(2) of the Army Act, had

passed the order on 30.11.2011 by confirming the sentence passed by the

Summary Court Martial. In the said circumstances, the second statutory

petition could not be considered by the competent authority since an order

of confirmation had already been passed either on the photocopy of the

unactioned application submitted by the applicant or under the provisions of

Section-153 of Army Act. In the said circumstances, the rejection of the

second statutory petition cannot be said as illegal nor the order of

21

confirmation of the verdict of Summary Court Martial passed on the first

application dated February, 2011, held illegal.

14. When we go into the merits of confirming the sentence passed by the

Summary Court Martial, the competent authority had discussed the points

that the accused had pleaded guilty to both the charges and the Officer

holding the trial found him guilty and rightly sentenced him to be dismissed

from service. Apart from that, the reasons put forth by the applicant that he

was a poor soldier and his plea for reinstatement were considered, and in

order to maintain discipline, such reinstatement was negatived and the

sentence of dismissal was found commensurate with the gravity and nature

of the offences. The competent authority even though not required to give

reasons for registering confirmation of the findings of the Summary Court

Martial as per the Judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1990

SC, 1984 between S.N. Mukherji Vs. Union of India, proper reasons were

given by the competent authority. The applicant had uttered a lie regarding

the time of departure from his native place to rejoin service could be

evidenced in the application itself and the conduct of the applicant as told by

him in losing the Identity Card and his failure to give a Police complaint,

would show that he was not a prudent solider to act at relevant times and

his silence and his accepting an alternative employment at Thiruchenkodu,

Salem, without informing his family as well as the serving unit for about

three years would show that he does not deserve reinstatement in service

22

and even the dismissal order is not liable to be set aside. In the said

circumstances, the applicant is not entitled for the reliefs of setting aside the

orders passed by the 2nd respondent in the statutory petition dated

February, 2011, on 30.11.2011, and also the rejection order passed on the

second statutory petition filed on 22.12.2011. He is also not found entitled

for reinstatement in the service. Accordingly, all the three points are

decided against the applicant.

15. Point No.4: In view of our discussion held above, we find that the

applicant is not entitled to any relief sought for in the application.

Accordingly, the application is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

16. In fine, the application is dismissed. However, there is no order as to

costs.

Sd/- Sd/-

JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH LT GEN (Retd) ANAND MOHAN VERMA MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A)

19.4.2013

Member (J) – Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

Member (A)– Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

NCS

23

To,

1. Union of India, - Represented by

The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence,

South Block, DHQ (PO) New Delhi - 110011.

2. The General Officer Commanding in Chief Headquarters

Southern Command Pune - 411 001.

3. The Commandant

Madras Regimental Centre Wellington – 643 231

(The Nilgiris).

4. Mr. V. Parthiban for M/s. Ayyar&Iyer,

Counsel for applicant.

5. Mr.B.Shanthakumar,

Senior Panel Counsel

6. OIC, Legal Cell, ATNK & K Area,

Chennai-600009.

7. Library, AFT, Chennai.

24

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

AND

HON’BLE LT GEN (RETD) ANAND MOHAN VERMA

MEMBER (ADMINISTRATIVE)

O.A.No.68 of 2012

19.04.2013