Jagir Singh vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

B.A. Khan, C.J. (A)

This appeal is directed against Writ Court judgment dated 22.10.1998 dismissing appellants writ petition, SWP No. 856/1986.

Facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarized, thus. The appellant is working as Carpenter in the Army. During the interrogation of one Gnr

Aya Singh, it was revealed that the appellant was involved in espionage. He was thus detained, His army custody was held justified in a Habeas

Corpus petition filed by the appellant for his release from custody. The Commanding Officer of the appellant recommended his termination from

service in view of the serious allegations of espionage against him. The matter was processed in various channels/commands. All the channels,

justified the action proposed by the Commanding Officer. Recommendations were made for termination of the appellant without giving any show

cause notice to him,

The Chief of the Army Staff directed his termination of service u/s 20 of the Army Act read with Army Rule 17. The termination order was

communicated vide No. 8023956/JS/125/A dated 8.8.1986 certifying that it was inexpedient to serve a show cause notice on the appellant.

The appellant challenged communication dated 8.8.1986 in SWP No. 866/1986. Termination was called in question as violative of Army Act

and Army Rules.

The Writ Court on consideration of the matter and taking in regard the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Army Act and Rule 17 of the Army

Rules, held as follows:

...This order was passed on the recommendations of GOC-in-C Northern Command which was based upon the result of investigation on the

charge of espionage. The opinion of the Chief of Army Staff thus cannot be said to be vitiated by extraneous or irrelevant considerations.

The Writ Court accordingly dismissed appellant's writ petition, which has given rise to this appeal.

Sh. D.S. Saini, learned Counsel appearing for appellant, submits that there being no proof against the appellant having committed any act of

espionage and there being no material before the Military Authorities on the basis of which his services could be terminated in the absence of a

show cause notice in terms of Rule 17 of the Army Rules, the termination of services of the appellant is illegal. Reliance is placed by the learned

Counsel on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in ""Janak Raj v. Union of India"" 2003 KLJ 199, which suggests that there had to be some

additional material before the Army Chief to order termination of service without issuing show cause notice as contemplated by Section 20 of the

Army Act and Rule 17 of the Army Rules. Section 20 of the Army Act and Rule 17 of the Army Rules provide:

Dismissal, removal or reduction by the Chief of Army Staff and by other officers. -(1) The Chief of the Army Staff may dismiss or remove

from service any person subject to this Act, other than an officer.

Rule 17 which is crucial for the purpose which reads as:

Dismissal or removal by Chief of the Army Staff and by other officer. - Save in the case where a person is dismissed or removed from service

on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction by a criminal court or a court-martial, no person shall be dismissed or removed under

Sub-section (1) (3) of Section 20, unless he has been informed of the particulars of the cause of action against him and allowed reasonable time to

state in writing any reasons he may have to urge against his dismissal or removal from the service; Provided that if in the opinion of the officer

competent to order the dismissal or removal, it is not expedient or reasonably practicable to comply with the provisions of this rule, he may after

certifying to that effect, order the dismissal or removal without complying with the procedure set out in this rule. All cases of dismissal or removal

under this rule where the prescribed procedure has not been complied with shall be reported to the Central Government.

Although first part of Rule 17 of the Army Rules, provides that no person shall be dismissed or removed u/s 20 of the Army Act unless he is

informed of the particulars of the cause of action against him and allowed reasonable time to state in writing any reasons he may have to urge

against his dismissal or removal.

This Rule is, however, subject to the proviso appended to the Rule which provides that if the officer competent to order dismissal or removal,

forms an opinion that it is not expedient or reasonably practicable to comply with the provisions of this Rule, he may after certifying to that effect,

order dismissal or removal without complying with the procedure set out in the Rule.

We have examined the issue raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the judgment of the Division Bench as also the records produced

before us by learned Counsel for the respondent.

The Army Chief has not dispensed with the procedure contained in Rule 17 of the Army Rules, just for nothing. There has been an

investigation conducted against the appellant in which he was found to have crossed over the Border and received an amount of Rs. 1,000/-

(Rupees one thousand) for passing on some military information to the enemy. The detention of the appellant, in army custody, has been held valid

by this Court, while deciding Habeas Corpus petition.

We further notice from the records that Commanding Officer of the appellant had recommended his termination of service in the interest of

National Security. This recommendation of the learned Commanding Officer has been examined at the requisite level. All the high ranking Officers

of the Army have recommended termination of service of appellant under Rule 17 of the Army Rules. Recommendations for dispensing with the

issuance of notice too have been made by the officers.

The records bear testimony to the effect that the Chief of Army Staff has certified to the effect that it is inexpedient to issue notice to the

appellant before terminating his services. This finding of the Chief of the Army Staff, in our opinion, is not justiciable in view of the available material

on the records.

In our opinion, there is sufficient material existing both for formation of opinion and also for dispensing with the procedure contained in Rule 17

of the Army Rules. We have examined the judgment in Janak Raj's case and find that the Division Bench seized of the case had not found even a

mention of the fact in the order impugned in that case that holding of inquiry is being dispensed with in view of the security reasons.

The order impugned in Janak Raj's case, has been quoted by the Division Bench to hold that the order nowhere makes the mention of the fact

that action is required to be taken under the proviso of Rule 17 of the Army Rules because it is not expedient or reasonably practicable to comply

with the provisions of this Rule.

We, therefore, find that the judgment cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is distinguishable on facts. The facts of the

present case are entirely different than the one found in Janak Raj's case. The judgment cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant,

therefore, does not advance the case of the appellant.

For all this, we find no merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.