NARAIN SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 115 · Decided: 20-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
115
NARAIN SINGH
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7452-7453 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 20, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA, M. R. SHAH AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Army Rules, 1954 – r. 13(3)(III)(v) – Discharge from service
– Appellant was enrolled in the Indian Army as a driver – He suffered
four red ink entries during the period from 07.06.1993 and
03.05.1994 – Appellant served for 13 years 7 months and 6 days
and before he could complete the pensionable service, he was
discharged u/r. 13(3)(III)(v) of the Army Rules solely on the ground
of four red ink entries – Aggrieved, appellant filed application
before the Armed Forces Tribunal, which was dismissed – Review
application was also dismissed – On appeal, held: Award of four
red ink entries simply pushes the individual concerned into a grey
area where he can be considered for discharge – But just because
he qualifies for such discharge, does not mean that he must
necessarily suffer that fate – In the instant case, there was nothing
adverse against the appellant from the period between 1980 to
07.06.1993 – All the four red ink entries related to period between
07.06.1993 and 03.05.1994 – There was nothing on record to
suggest that the nature of the mis-conduct leading to the award of
red ink entries was so unacceptable that the competent authority
had no option but to direct his discharge to prevent indiscipline in
the force – The Commanding Officer failed to take into consideration
the relevant aspects and appellant was discharged from service
mechanically and solely on the basis of award of four red ink entries
– Thus, order of discharge unjustified and not sustainable in law –
Service Law – Armed Forces.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.  On perusal of the four red ink entries and the
nature of allegations and the charge on the basis of which four
red entries were awarded to the appellant. It appears that, out of
four red ink entries, two entries pertain to 3.3.1994 and one entry
 [2019] 13 S.C.R. 115
115
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
pertains to 3.5.1994. Out of the aforesaid, with respect to one of
the red ink entries, the allegation was that the appellant refused
to take food when he was ordered. Considering the nature of
offences for which the red ink entries were made, this Court is of
the opinion that on the basis of such red ink entries, the appellant
could not have been discharged from service and that too after
rendering 13 years of service and when he was about to complete
the pensionable service.  From the impugned judgment and order,
it appears that the appellant has been discharged from service
mechanically and solely on the basis of award of four red ink
entries.  As observed by this Court in the case of Veerendra Kumar
Dubey, mere award of four red ink entries does not make the
discharge mandatory. It is further observed that four red ink
entries is not some kind of Laxman Rekha, which if crossed would
by itself render the individual concerned undesirable or unworthy
of retention in the force. Award of four red ink entries simply
pushes the individual concerned into a grey area where he can
be considered for discharge. But just because he qualifies for
such discharge, does not mean that he must necessarily suffer
that fate. It is further observed that it is one thing to qualify for
consideration and an entirely different to be found fit for discharge.
It is further observed that four red ink entries in that sense takes
the individual closer to discharge but does not push him over. It
is axiomatic that the Commanding Officer is, even after the award
of such entries, required to consider the nature of the offence for
which such entries have been awarded and other aspects. It is
further observed that the authority exercising the power of
discharge is expected to take into consideration all relevant
factors. That an individual has put in long years of service giving
more often than not the best part of his life to armed forces, that
he has been exposed to hard stations and difficult living conditions
during his tenure and that he may be completing pensionable
service, are factors which the authority competent to discharge
would have even independent of the procedure been required to
take into consideration while exercising the power of discharge.
[Para 6.2][120-C-H; 121-A]
2. Coming then to the case at hand, there is nothing on
record to suggest that the authority concerned has taken into
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
117
consider

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.