Vinoda Kumar vs Union Of India And Others

,,,,

The instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, wherein, he has sought",,,,

following reliefs:,,,,

(i) Quash and set aside the impugned letter dated 18.12.2018; and/or,,,,

(ii) Direct the respondents to issue fresh discharge book with the 'exemplary' remarks in the character column instead of `good'; and/or,,,,

(iii) Pass appropriate directions to initiate action against Respondent No. 4 for his misuse of power.,,,,

The applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 05.07.1999. He sought voluntary discharge from service and accordingly he was discharged from,,,,

service with effect from 31.12.2017 under Rule 13(3) III (iv) of the Army Rules, 1954, after rendering 18 years, 05 months and 27 days.",,,,

At the time of discharge from service, the applicant was issued a combined certificate of discharge and the recommendation for civil employment.",,,,

On scrutiny of the said documents, the applicant found that his character and personality recorded for the purpose of assessment of his suitability for",,,,

civil employment contained remarks like 'poor', 'very poor' and 'weak'. Instead, it is stated that the assessment should have been in accordance with",,,,

the provisions of Regulation 170 of the Regulations for the Army, 1987, which deals with the assessment of character of a soldier.",,,,

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since the applicant was possessing all the required conditions for grant of 'exemplary character',",,,,

granting remarks like 'poor', 'very poor' and 'weak' are in clear violation of the aforesaid Army Regulations. He also stated that it was on account of",,,,

the complaint made by the Commanding Officer of the unit, who had a bit of an axe to grind against the applicant, such remarks were made in the",,,,

certificate. Learned counsel also contended that by giving such a certificate, the respondents have acted arbitrarily. It is also stated that public interest",,,,

demands that administration must abide by some ethics and responsibilities. Furthermore, the respondents should have exercised the discretionary",,,,

power vested with them properly, taking into account the fact that by giving such a certificate, the applicant would not be able to get any civil",,,,

employment and it was only to thwart the possibility of getting a lucrative civil employment, such a certificate has been issued to the applicant.",,,,

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per the service records, the applicant was awarded several punishments",,,,

while in service. Despite award of such punishments, the character of the applicant was assessed as 'good' by the Commanding Officer in the",,,,

discharge roll, on account of which the applicant was granted service pension. The applicant submitted a legal notice for re-assessing his character,",,,,

which was considered by the OIC Records. However, the case for re-assessment of his character was turned down based on the recommendations",,,,

of the Commanding Officer, 9 PA] RIF. The assessment of character by the Commanding Officer is discretionary and not obligatory and the same",,,,

was intimated by the third respondent vide letter dated 18.12.2018. Learned counsel for the respondents also stated that Regulation 170 of the,,,,

Regulations for the Army, 1987 provides only the minimum conditions which must be met, for grant of ""exemplary' character"", while the discretion",,,,

entirely vests in the Commanding Officer for assessment of military character of a soldier. It is further submitted that the applicant was discharged,,,,

from service with effect from 31.12.2017 on compassionate grounds at his own request before completion of term of engagement under Rule 13(3),,,,

item III (iv) of Army Rules, 1954. It is pleaded that the Officer commanding the Unit/Records is the sole authority to decide whether a soldier is to be",,,,

granted an ""exemplary character"" and the said grant is discretionary and not obligatory. Keeping in view the punishments awarded to the applicant, the",,,,

Commanding Officer has not granted ""exemplary character"" in the records and the said act of the Commanding Officer cannot, in any manner, said to",,,,

be illegal, unjust or irregular.",,,,

Keeping in view the rival contentions made by learned counsel on both the sides, we think it appropriate to refer to Regulation 170 of the Army",,,,

Regulations, which reads thus:",,,,

Assessment of Character.â€" (a) (i) On discharge the OC unit/records will enter on the discharge certificate the man's military,,,,

character while serving with the colours. The entry will be exemplary, very good, good, fair, indifferent bad or very bad as the case may be.",,,,

(ii) An assessment of exemplary character is the highest that can be given to any soldier and is to be awarded only to a soldier whose period,,,,

of service has enabled his conduct to be thoroughly tested. It will therefore be reserved for soldiers who lid ye served at least five years with,,,,

the colours. The OC unit/records is the sole judge whether a soldier is to be granted an exemplary character, the grant being discretionary",,,,

and not obligatory.,,,,

(ill) In assessing a soldier's character, only entries 0 the Regimental Conduct Sheet will be taken into account.",,,,

(iv) In the case of soldiers who had served as boys, entries which they may have incurred in their Regimental! Conduct Sheets prior to",,,,

attaining the age of .17 years will not be taken into account in assessing their military character.,,,,

(v) A bad character will not be awarded to a NCO.,,,,

(b) The following are the minimum standards required in each grade before a soldier's military character can be assessed: â€",,,,

(I) Exemplary â€"(aa) At least five years service with the colours on the current employment.,,,,

(at) No award of imprisonment by a civil court which has been undergone.,,,,

(ac) No award of imprisonment, detention or field punishment.",,,,

(ad) No reduction in rank or grade for an offence under the Army Act,",,,,

(ae) No conviction for drunkenness during the last five years of service,",,,,

(ii) Very good.â€"(aa) At least one year's service with the colours on the current engagement.,,,,

(at) No award of imprisonment by a civil court which has been undergone.,,,,

(ac) Not more than 28 days of service spent in RI, detention or field punishment in the aggregate.",,,,

(ad) No reduction in rank or grade for an offence under the Army Act.,,,,

Ser

No",Army Act,Date of Award,Punishment Awarded,Type of Entry

(a),39(a),01 Apr 2009,14 days pay fine,Black Ink

(b),63,13 Sep 2010,05 days pay fine,Black Ink

(c),63,05 Jul 2016,07 days pay fine,Black Ink

(d),39(d),02 Sep 2016,14 days pay fine,Black Ink

(e),63,29 Mar 2017,"14 days pay fine and Service

Reprimand",Red Ink

(f),63,22 Apr 2017,"Deprived of appointed of Lance

Hav and 145 days pay fine",Red Ink

(g),39 (d),29 Nov 2017,14 days pay fine,Black Ink