S. MUTHU KUMARAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 550 · Decided: 17-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2017] I S.C.R. 550 
S. MUTHU KUMARAN 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.352of2017) 
JANUARY 17. 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Service Law - Dismissal from service - Of delinquent employee 
in Army - On the a/legation that he was involved in fraudulent 
recruitment racket - Confessional statement of the employee -
General Commanding Officer dismissed the service oI the 
employee - The order affirmed by Armed Forces Tribunal - On· 
appeal, held: GOC in exercise of his rights uls.20(3) of Army Act r! 
w. r.17 of Army Rules passed the order of dismissal - The provisions 
of Army Act and Rules as also principles of natural justicxe were 
D . complied with - The Tribunal also rightly appraised the evidence 
and the law while affirming the dismissal order - However, in view 
of his 17 years of unblemished service, punishment of dismissal is 
extreme - Therefore. the same is modified to discharge from 
E 
F 
G 
H 
·service - Army Act, 1950 - s.20(3) -Army Rules, 1954 -
J'. 17 -
Principles of Natural Justice. 
Partly allowing the aP.peal, the Court 
HELD: As per Section 20(3) of the Army Act, 1950 an 
officer having power not less than a brigade or equivalent 
commander or any prescribed officer may dismiss or remove from 
the service any person serving under his command. other than an 
officer or a junior commissioned officer. Rule 17 of the Army 
rules, 1954 requires the dismissal/removal order to be a reasoned 
one. In the present case, the General Officer Commanding 26 
(GOC), Infantry Division initiated administrative action against 
the appellant on the ground of being allegedly involved in 
fraudulent recruitment. Show cause notice was duly issued to 
the appellant and he was afforded an opportunity of filing reply to 
the show cause notice as well as an addftional reply. The provisions 
of the Army Act and Rules thereof; as well as the mandate of 
natural justice w'as duly complied with in the case of the appellant. 
Henceforth, the GOC exercised his right under Section 20(3) of 
550 
S. MUTHU KUMARAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
the Act coupled with rule 17 of the Rules, and dismissed the 
appellant from services w.e.f. 10.07 .. 2011. After having rightly 
appraised the evidence on record and the law dealing with the 
subject, the Armed forces tribunal dismissed the application filed 
by the appellant, thereby affirming his dismissal from service. 
There is no perversity in the findings of the Tribunal. [Para 9] 
[553-G-H; 554-A-C] 
2. However, as far as the dismissal from service is 
concerned, it is an extreme punishment imposed against the 
appellant. When the dismissal order was passed iu case of the 
appellant, the GOC could have taken into account the 
unblemished service record of the appellant and his long service. 
If an order of discharge would have been inflicted against the 
appellant, he still would have been restricted from continuing in 
service and at the same time, the appellant, who had served 
diligently for more than 17 years, would have been granted with 
the benefits accrued on his service rendered so far. Therefore, 
the punishment of dismissal from service is modified into 
discharge from service. [Paras 10, 11] [554-D-F; 555-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 352 
of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.05.2016 of the Armed 
Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Jaipur in O.A. No. 96 of 20 l 1 and 
30.05.2016.in M.A. No. 320 of2016 in 0.A. No. 96 of20l l. 
Mohan Kumar, V. Sivasubramanian, Advs., for the Appellant. 
Atmaram N. S. Nadkami, ASG, R. Bala Subramanian, Santosh 
. Kumar, Ananya Mishra, Ms. Aarti Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, 
Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
.R. BANUMATHI, J. I. The present appeal is filed under Section 
30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal.Act, 20'.)7 assailing the judgment and 
order dated 06.05.2016 in 0.A. No. 96 uf20l I, as well as order dated 
30.05.2016 in M.A. No.320 of201G in (J A. No.96of20l1 passed by 
the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Jaipur, dismissing the 
original application filed by the appellant sesking reinstatement in service 
with all consequential benefits. 
551 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
552 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 
2. In a nutshell, the facts leading to present appeal are as follows. 
The appellant was inducted in the Indian Army on 26.04.1994 on the 
post ofHavildar/Clerk. The appellant is alleged to have be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.