LexRAM SUNDER RAM versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
RAM SUNDER RAM
-
<-.
v.
'
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
JULY 11, 2007
B
[T ARUN CHATTERJEE AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, Jl]
-j-
Army Act, 1950; Ss. 20, 22 and 63/Army Rules, 1954; Rr. 12, 13 and
~
177: Indiscipline-Prejudicial act to good order-Employee serving as Petrol,
c Oil and Lubricant Clerk allegedly received money from an outsider for
selling of gas illegally-Complaint-Court of inquiry-Authority found him
guilty of prejudicial act to good order and military discipline u/s. 63 of the
act and discharged him from service-Challenge to-Dismissed by High
Court-On appeal, Held: Before the Court of inquiry, the delinquent was
given proper and adequate opportunity to cross examine the witnesses,
D which he did not chose to avail-Having found the cause shown by the
delinquent unsatisfactory, the competent authority ordering his discharge
r
from service in exercise of power conferred on it mentioning wrong provisions
..,..
of law-In fact, order of discharge could be passed u/s. 22 of the Act and not
u/s. 20 of the Act-Merely because a reference was made to a wrong provision
E of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power by the authority
so long as power does exist and traceable to the source available' in law-
Order of discharge in question is an order of termination of service simplicitor
without casting or attaching any stigma to the conduct of the employee,
hence cannot be termed to be punitive in nature/prejudicial to the future
employment.
F
Appellant was working as Clerk in the Army establishment. While
'r -
performing the duties of Petrol, Oil and Lubricants (POL) Clerk, anonymous
complaints were received against him. The competent authority ordered
convening of the court of inquiry. The appellant was detained for interrogation
under custody. During interrogation, he had made confessional statement of
G receiving illegal money of Rs. 12,500/- from the owner of a Pansari Shop for
selling 87 MT Gas illegally in connivance with a driver. Later, he deposited
Rs. 5,200/- out of Rs. 12,500/- allegedly received by him as illegal money.
The Court of Inquiry submitted its report to the competent authority. The
)',-+ -·-
appellant, having been found guilty of act prejudicial to good order and military
'
H
292
RAM SUNDER RAM v. U.0.1.
293
discipline, charged him· under Section 63 of the Army Act and a show cause A
..,_
notice was issued to him. The appellant showed cause which was found
unsatisfactory. The c'ompetent authority discharged him from service.
Aggrieved, the appell~nt challenged the order in the High Court The Single
Judge of the High)Ziurt set aside the order of discharge interalia on the
/
ground 90.l.!*'ltion of the principles of natural justice and directed the B
respefndents to reinstate the appellant with 25% of his arrear of salaries. In
_yr{it appeal filed by the Union of India, the order of the Single Judge was set
~aside by a Division Bench of the High Court. Hence the present appeal.
_J
Appellant contended that the order of removing him from service was
vitiated being contrary to Section 63 of the Army Act, which provides for C
imposing any kind of punishment only after conviction by court-martial; that
the proceedings of the Court oflnquiry have been used as evidence against
him contrary to Rule 12 of the Army Rules, 1954 as no discharge certificate
was prepared and sent to the appellant; that the Court of Inquiry, acting under
· the Army Rules, collects evidence during fact finding proceedings and no one
is charged of any offence in that proceedings; that the· evidence collected during D
inquiry is not admissible against him in terms of Section 63 of the Act; that
the appellant was discharged from service, as a result thereof his entire past
service has been forfeited and he has been deprived of the benefit of pension
as also future employment in any other civil service; and that he was
administratively discharged from service contrary to the provisions of Section E
63 and there is no provision to impose major penalty in the form of termination
of service of the appellan,t by the Authority under the guise of discharge from
service in exercise of power under Section 20 of the Act.
Respondent submitted that the authority has passed the order of
discharge simplicitor under Section 22 of the Act and Section 20 of the Act F
•, .,
appears to have been wrongly mentioned by the authority in the order of
discharge.
DismiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.