Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.21 seconds)Ram Sunder Ram vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 July, 2007
10. The learned counsel relied upon the judgments delivered by this Court
in Ram Sunder Ram v. Union of India (2007 (13) SCC 255) and Union of India
v. Dipak Kumar Santra (2009 (7) SCC 370) so as to substantiate his case,
that if an enquiry is made and thereafter, a non attested trainee is
discharged, it is not necessary to issue a notice calling upon him to show
cause as to why his services should not be terminated. According to him,
Respondent no.1 had remained unauthorisedly absent, which was an act of
indiscipline and the said fact had been established in the court of enquiry
held on 29th July, 2005. He had also been declared deserter. Moreover, as
he had not been given regular appointment as a solider, being like a
probationer, it was open to the Commanding Officer of Respondent no.1 to
discharge him from service as per the provisions of Rule 13(3) of the
Rules.
Union Of India & Ors vs Dipak Kumar Santra on 6 May, 2009
10. The learned counsel relied upon the judgments delivered by this Court
in Ram Sunder Ram v. Union of India (2007 (13) SCC 255) and Union of India
v. Dipak Kumar Santra (2009 (7) SCC 370) so as to substantiate his case,
that if an enquiry is made and thereafter, a non attested trainee is
discharged, it is not necessary to issue a notice calling upon him to show
cause as to why his services should not be terminated. According to him,
Respondent no.1 had remained unauthorisedly absent, which was an act of
indiscipline and the said fact had been established in the court of enquiry
held on 29th July, 2005. He had also been declared deserter. Moreover, as
he had not been given regular appointment as a solider, being like a
probationer, it was open to the Commanding Officer of Respondent no.1 to
discharge him from service as per the provisions of Rule 13(3) of the
Rules.
Section 16 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
1