Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)Vidya Prakash vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 February, 1988
In the case in Vidya Prakash v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1988 SC 705, the question raised before the Apex Court was in Order to awarding four red ink entries and if a person is absent without leave, whether the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate or not. In the aforesaid case the Supreme Court has held that if a person is punished for an offence of absence from duty on four occasions and there was red ink entry, then the punishment awarded by the Court Martial for dismissal of service cannot be said to disproportionate to the charge levelled against the person concerned.
Union Of India & Ors vs Corporal A.K. Bakshi & Anr on 23 February, 1996
In the case in Union of India and Ors. v. Corporal A.K. Bakshi and Anr., AIR 1996 SC 1368, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the similar provisions of Air Force, which is, similar to Air Force Rule 15 (2) (g) (ii) and 18 was under consideration. The similar provision is in the Army Act and Rules. It has been held by the Apex Court that policy of discharge of habitual offender as prescribed in the policy directive dated 14.3.1988 discharging a person in accordance with procedure laid down does not amount to removal by way of punishment. It is a discharge under Rule 15(2)(g){ii). It is important to mention here that similar policy for removal for undesirable and inefficient soldiers has been framed by the Army authorities dated 28th December, 1988. The relevant part is being quoted below :
Section 29 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Union Of India And Others vs Giriraj Sharma on 17 March, 1993
7. From the perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it is clear that the power has been conferred to the Army authorities to take an administrative action against a person, who is serving in the army, as the petitioner was a habitual offender and he was warned and he was punished four times and found absent without leave as provided under Section 39 of the Army Act. The contention of the petitioner to this effect that no administrative action should have been taken against the petitioner as no Court martial was held, therefore, the punishment Is bad and cannot be accepted as in view of the provisions of Section 125 of the Army Act, it is the army authorities to choose the forum. In the Army Act, there are two modes of punishment, which is to be awarded to the army personnel, one by a Court Martial as provided under the Act, and other is administrative action provided under the Army Act and the procedure has been given under Rule 13 (III) (v) of the Rules. The petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Giriraj Sharma,. AIR 1994 SC 215 and has submitted that in view of the aforesaid Judgment the punishment of dismissal merely on the ground of over-staying leave period is harsh and disappropriate. The Court has perused the said judgment and the fact of this case and the case in hand is clearly distinguishable as the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, mentioned above was regarding a civilian employee, who was an electrician, sought leave for 10 days on 10th December, 1982. The leave was granted while he was on leave. He sent a telegram for extension of leave by 12 days. The said request was rejected. However, the respondents joined duty on 22nd December, 1982 thereby over-staying the period of leave by 12 days; for this act the services were terminated. In that case, the Supreme Court has said that the Order of High Court quashing the Order of dismissal from service cannot be interfered because the Apex Court has taken into consideration that the application was received but the same was rejected.
Section 80 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 125 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 39 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Sugreev Singh Desuriya vs Central Government Of India And Ors. on 3 April, 2002
9. The Apex Court has further held that in the said circumstances, discharge from service cannot be said to be by way of punishment. The Division Bench of this Court in the case in Sugriv Singh Desuriya v. Central Government, 2002 (2) ESC 207 (All), has also taken the same view and has held that policy of discharging of habitual offender cannot be said to be ultra vires and if a person has been awarded four red ink entries punishment cannot be said to be illegal. It has also been held that the person concerned was given adequate opportunity of placing his defence in accordance with Rules and procedure provided, therefore, it cannot be held that the punishment which has been awarded is not correct.
1