UNION OF INDIA AND ORS versus RAJESH VYAS

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 571 · Decided: 07-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

le 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 571 
.... _ \ 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS . 
A 
·-t-
II. 
~ 
RAJESH VYAS 
I 
(Civil Appeal No. 2668 of 2002) 
FEBRUARY 7 I 2008 
B 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
-.\ 
Service Law: 
j. 
Air Force Rules, 1969; r.15(2)(g)(ii)!Air Force Act, 1982; c 
S.82: 
Discharge of Airmen from service in terms of guidelines 
issued under Habitual Offenders Policy- Issuance of warning 
to Airmen to improve their conduct and behaviour - Before 
ordering discharge of delinquent airmen, a show cause notice D 
was issued for committing further offence by them - Delinquent 
" 
airmen discharged from service by competent authority after 
due service of show cause notice and consideration of reply 
" 
in each case complying with relevant instruction in connection 
thereof- On facts, Courts below were wrong in holding that the 
E 
reply to show cause notice was not considered by the authority 
- Hence, judgment of the Single Judge as a/so Division Bench 
of the High Court set aside - However, in the facts and 
circumstances of the connected appeal (C.A. No. 2670 of 2002), 
Division Bench of the Hjgh Court rightly set aside order of 
Single Judge - No interference with the order of the High Court F 
' "' 
in that case called for. 
Respondents filed writ petitions against the order of 
discharge passed by the appellants. The petitions were 
allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court holding 
G 
that the order of discharge was passed by the authorities 
in clear violation of principles of natural justice. Appeals 
,, 
filed against the order of the Single Judge were dismissed 
by the Division Bench of the High Court upholding the 
view of Single Judge in four cases, against which present 
571 
H 
572 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 2 S.C.R. 
A appeals were filed by the ·appellants. 
~ _,, 
4· 
Appellant-Union of India contended that the original 
~-
records were produced before the High Court, which 
,_
clearly indicate that show cause notice was issued; that 
B the fact that each of such respondents had replied to show 
cause notice is also not disputed by respondents; that 
both Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High 
Court went wrong in holding that without consideration 
~· 
of the replies the order of discharge had been passed. 
-4. 
c 
Respondents submitted that the order of discharge 
does not indicate any consideration of reply to the show 
cause notice. 
Dismissing Civil Appeal No.2670 of 2002 and allowing 
the other appeals, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1 It appears that the Habitual Offenders' 
Policy was formulated by the appellants as a result of a 
...... 
project study on offences of 'absence without leave' 
~ 
and other offences committed by Airmen, which brought 
E out the salient features regarding the existence of 
habitual offenders amongst Airmen in Indian Air Force. It 
was found that there was a specific hard core group of 
airmen in the Air Force who have been contributing 
regularly and predominantly to the annual offence 
statistics in the Air Force, year after year. This group of 
F Airmen have been a strong source of adverse influence 
>.' 
on the general discipline of other Airmen in the service. 
(Para - 7) [575-G, H; 576-A] 
. 1.2 In terms of the Habitual Offenders Policy, warning · 
G had to be given to an Airman who was on the threshold 
and he was called upon to improve his conduct and 
behaviour and that in case he committed any further 
~ 
offence, and came within the. purview of an habitual 
offender he would be liable to be discharged. In case he 
H commits any further offence then would be given a show 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. RAJ ESH VYAS 
573 
.. '\ 
cause notice and, thereafter discharge was to be ordered A 
I 
·f 
by the competent authority under r. 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Air 
Force Rules, 1969. (Para - 9) [577-E, F] 
2. The materials relevant for the consideration of the 
reply given by the concerned officia·ls are part of the B 
record. There is no dispute that the original records were 
produced before the High Court. Though in the discharge 
+ 
order there is no specific reference to the consideration 
> 
by the appropriate authority, as a matter of fact the reply 
to show cause notice in each case was considered. After 
due consideration of the reply, the recommendation was c 
that the competent authority may be pleased to approve 
the discharge of concerned officials as unsuitable for 
retention in service. Various officials considered the 
matter and the compet

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