AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.P. Bhatt, J.—Present petition is filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia praying for:
16(A). This Hon''ble Court be pleased to issue an order, writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action army authorities for discharging the Petitioner from army without any reasons and justification when he was duly selected as a sepoy and when there was nothing against him, as arbitrary, illegal and be pleased to set aside the same and direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in services with all consequential relief, with 18% interest.
1.1 It is further prayed that:
16(B) Be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to reinstate the Petitioner as sepoy in his original post in the army with continuity of service and with all consequential benefits.
After preliminary hearing of the petition, Rule was ordered to be issued on 11th April 2001 by this Court (Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice MS Shah). In response to the same, learned advocate Mr. VH Kanara is appearing on behalf of the Respondents.
Today, the matter is listed for Final Hearing. Heard learned advocate Mr. PH Pathak for the Petitioner and learned advocate Mr. VH Kanara for the Respondents.
It is the case of the Petitioner that after due selection by the army authorities, he was recruited as a ''Sepoy'' in the ''Infantry Branch'' of the army on 15th February 1995. The Petitioner undergone the training for about 20 weeks in the Mahar Regiment Kender, Mahar Regiment Centre at Sagar (M.P.). The Petitioner successfully completed his training as required under the Army Rules and Regulations. A copy of Discharge Book showing the date of recruitment of the Petitioner as well as the date of discharge is produced at Annexure ''A'' to the petition. It is further the case of the Petitioner that on completion of the training, he got the annual leave and went to his native place at Village Amlum. During his leave period, when he was at his native, election of Sarpanch were being conducted and his Aunt was contesting the election along with other lady of the village. It is the case of the Petitioner that unfortunately the lady who lost the election for Sarpanch against his aunt, filed police complaint and the Petitioner was also named therein as an accused. It is further the case of the Petitioner that after completion of leave period at his native place, he reported for duty in Mahar Regiment Centre but he was not allowed to take charge because of police complaint and police verification was not received by the army authorities at Mahar Regiment. It is the case of the Petitioner that based on such F.I.R. against the Petitioner, the army authorities made a case of discharge against the Petitioner and he was discharged from army w.e.f. 18th May 1996. It is the case of the Petitioner that he was acquitted by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sihori before the order of discharge was passed by the Respondent - authorities. But, due to negligence of the police authorities, copy of order of acquittal was not sent to the army authorities in time and therefore, the Respondent - authorities decided to take a decision of discharge of the Petitioner from the services of the army. It is further submitted that the Petitioner belongs to a very poor and down trodden family from a remote village of Gujarat and he belongs to a socially, educationally and economically backward class and as such he was unaware of rules, procedures and limitation period etc. for making representation to the Government authorities in such matters and therefore, he could not approach the Court within the reasonable time. It is further submitted that the livelihood of the Petitioner and his family is absolutely dependent on the job of the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the complaint filed against the Petitioner was politically motivated and as the competent Court has acquitted the Petitioner, the Respondent - authorities may be directed to reinstate the Petitioner with full back wages.
On behalf of the Respondents, affidavit in reply is filed at page 23. The Respondents resisted the present petition mainly on the ground set out in Para 5 of the affidavit in reply, wherein, the dates and events are mentioned, which clearly indicates that the Petitioner was granted leave but he overstayed and did not return in time. For overstaying, he was imposed 14 days'' pay fine. Subsequent thereto, on 11th May 1996, the Petitioner applied for discharge from the army service stating that he had no interest in army service as he was feeling ''homesickness''. The application submitted by the Petitioner is also produced along with the affidavit in reply vide Annexure ''R-I''. On 15th May 1996, upon application of the Petitioner, Minute Sheet for discharge was approved by the authorities. The said Minutes is also produced along with the affidavit in reply vide Annexure ''R-II''. It is also submitted that the Petitioner was not discharged from the army on the ground of adverse remarks in his verification roll but the Petitioner himself had applied for discharge from the army stating that he had no interest to serve in army as he felt ''homesickness''.
Considering the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of the petition, affidavit in reply and other documents produced on record it transpires that the Petitioner was selected as a ''Sepoy'' in the ''Infantry Branch'' of the army in February 1995. He had undergone training. In all, the Petitioner served for 01 year and 03 months with the army and thereafter, he proceeded on leave and went to his village and did not return in time and therefore, 14 days'' pay fine was imposed for overstaying by the Petitioner herein. It appears that the Petitioner is having misconception in his mind that he has been discharged from the service on account of some complaint filed against him and therefore, he tried to justify this argument that the competent Court has acquitted him from the charges levelled against him. Therefore, order passed by the Respondent - authorities with respect to discharge from service, based on such erroneous consideration may be set aside and he may reinstated in service.
6.1 On perusal of the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondent - authorities it becomes ample clear that the Petitioner was discharged from the service as he himself had volunteered and submitted an application as he was not ready and willing to continue his service with the army and based on this application, the matter was processed, minutized and approved by the authority concerned. The Respondent - authorities have produced necessary papers along with the affidavit in reply in support of these averments.
Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there is no substance in the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the Petitioner as the Petitioner himself had submitted an application for discharge, which was approved by the Respondent - authorities. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to get any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition, therefore, fails and deserves to be rejected.
7.1 The learned advocate for the Petitioner requested that the Petitioner may be extended benefit of ex-serviceman and for that purpose, the Respondent -
authorities may be directed to issue necessary Certificate.
7.2 As against this, the learned advocate for the Respondents pointed out that the Respondent - authorities have already issued a Discharge Certificate and the same is produced by the Petitioner along with the petition at Annexure ''A''. Therefore, there is no need to issue another Certificate, as requested by the learned advocate for the Petitioner. The Certificate at Annexure ''A'' will take care so far as the benefit permissible and available under the relevant Rules as an ex-serviceman.
In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.