Jeet Raj Ram vs Union of India and others

Tejinder Singh Doabia, J.—The petitioner was issued a showcause notice. This was done on 24/02/1999. It was brought to his notice that

during the period of twelve years and five months, he has earned four red entries. It was accordingly felt that his retention in service is not

desirable. For this reliance was placed on certain instructions issued by the respondents authorities. The petitioner submitted a reply. He stated that

he belongs to a poor family. He also took a plea that he would work diligently in future and therefore action be not taken against him.

The question as to whether this reply was considered or not is not apparent. The petitioner wa, however, served with an order dated

03/05/1999. for facility of reference this order is reproduced below :

No. 56998 Rfn/GD, 03 May 99

Jeet Raj Ram

`D' Coy

5 Assam Rifles

C/o 99.

DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE

Tac HQs vide signal No. A 1913 dt. 02 May 99 intimated that you are hereby dismissed from service with effect from 03 May 99 (FN) an per

No. 24, Chapter VIII of Assam Rifles Manual and para 8 of the ROI 4/88 being an undesirable soldier.

Tac HQs signal No. A 1913 dt. 02 May 99 refers.

Sd/

(R.S. Pillai)

Dy Comdt.

QM

for Comdt.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner did suffer four punishments. These are indicated in the showcause notice. Details of three of these

punishments have been given. Regarding fourth punishment i.e. he was in a state of intoxication, nothing has been said i.e. as to what was the exact

lapse is also not clear. However, in the counter filed, it is stated that on 08/10/1997, the petitioner while on active service was found in a state of

intoxication. Thus the last punishment which the petitioner suffered was on 08/10/1997. The showcause notice was given to him on 24/02/1999.

The fact that the petitioner had suffered four punishments has led to the final order of dismissal being passed.

This aspect of the matter has been considered in detail in SWP No. 599/98 decided on 06/072001. The view expressed was that merely

because a person has suffered four red entries should not be made the sole criteraia. It is the gravity of the offence which is required to be taken

note of. When a show cause notice is issued then whatever cause is shown by the petitioner delinquent is required to be taken note of. The order

of dismissed does not infact show that the cause shown by the petitioner is taken note of. Even otherwise the petitioner was merely informed that

his retention in service is not desirable and that his service would be terminated. There was nothing mentioned in the showcause notice that the

ultimate order which is going to be passed would one of dismissal. Thus the order of dismissal cannot be sustained because :

i) The gap between last lapse and the issuance of show cause notice is almost of two years,

ii) Whether cause shown by the petitioner was taken note of or not is not apparent from the final order; and

iii) That the show cause notice never indicated that the petitioner would be dismissed from service.

For these reasons and the reasons recorded in SWP No. 599/98, order dated 03/05/1999 cannot be sustained. This is quashed with a liberty

to the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with law.