ROMESH KUMAR SHARMA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 227 · Decided: 01-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

ROMESH KUMAR SHARMA 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST I, 2006 
[ARJJJT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
,; 
Army Act, 1950: 
-
Section 20(1)-Dismissal-Held, on facts, under the proviso to Rule 17 c 
the Chief of the Army Staff and other officers are competent to order dismissal 
or removal without complying with the procedure set out in the main part of 
the Rule after certifYing that it is not expedient or reasonably practicable to 
comply with the provisions so set out-Rule 17 of the Army Rules, 1954. 
The appellant while working as Harvildar/Clerk (GD) in Ladakh D 
Scouts, having 17 years service in the Army, was found involved, along 
with a few other persons, in espionage activities during the period 1984-
85. The appellant along with others was interrogated and a Court of 
Inquiry under Rule 177 of the Army Rules, 1954 ('Rules') was constituted 
to collect evidence and to report. The Court of Inquiry confirmed the 
involvement of the appellant. Keeping in view the paramount consideration E 
of Army discipline and the security of the State, it was considered 
expedient by the authorities to proceed against the appellant under Section 
20(1) of the Army Act, 1950 ('Act') read with Rule 17 of the Rules. 
Accordingly, the appellant was dismissed from service dispensing with 
enquiry. Appellant challenged the order of dismissal on the ground that F 
the same was illegal, unconstitutional, improper, malafide and violative of 
Rule 17 of the Rules and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 
1950 and that no opportunity of being heard and been afforded to him to 
explain his conduct. High court dismissed the writ petition; the Letter 
Patents Appeal too was dismissed. Review petition against the order of 
the single Judge too was dismissed. 
G 
-'-;-
It was contended by the appellant that true scope and ambit of Rule 
17 of the Rules has not been kept in view. Power of dismissal or removal 
from service is conferred on the Chief of the Army Staff. In the enquiry 
-
227 
H 
228 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A conducted by a Court of Inquiry, the role attributed to the appellant is 
v1~ry minor and does not warrant an order of dismissal. Parameters of 
the power of dismissal or removal are contained in Rule 17 of the Rules. 
The proviso is of exceptional nature. No reason was recorded as to why it 
was thought to be not expedient or reasonably practicable to comply with 
B the provisions of the main part of Rule 17 of the Rules. It was also pleaded 
that approval of Central Government was 11ecessary in case action was 
taken unde' the proviso to Rule 17. It was also contended that enquiry 
which was initiated should not have been abandoned midway and should 
have been continued. 
C 
It was contended by the respondent-Union of India and its 
functionaries that modalities to be followed when Chief of the Army Staff 
thinks it inexpedient to follow procedure as laid down in the main part of 
Rule 17 of the Rules have been followed. He gave a certificate to the effect 
that it is not expedient or reasonably practicable to comply with the 
provisions of the Rules and certificates as required has been given. It was 
D also contended that the approval of the Central Government is not 
necessary, all that it required that where proviso to rule 17 is resorted to, 
report has to be made to the Central Government and Record reveals that 
same has been done. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, the court 
HELD: I.I. The Chief of the Army Staff had followed the requisite 
procedure and the certificate as contemplated in the proviso to Rule 17 
of the Army Rules, 1954 has been given. The note clearly shows that 
various aspects were taken note of and it was specifically recorded that it 
F will be inexpedient to follow the procedure provided in the main part of 
Rule 17 of the Rules. (233-G-H; 234-A) 
G 
H 
1.2. Since the enquiry was not qua the appellant but it related to the 
incident, there was nothing wrong in the order of dismissal. (234-BJ 
Union of India and Ors. v. Harjeet Singh Sandhu, )2001) 5 SCC 593, 
referred to. 
I.3. Approval of the Central Government is not necessary. All that 
is required that where proviso to rule 17 is restored to, report has to be 
made to the Central Government. )235-B) 
--
ROMESH KUMAR SHARMA v. U.0.1. [PASAYAT, J.] 
229 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7308 of2003. A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.7.2002 of the High Court of 
Jammu and Kashmir at J

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