LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus RAJPAL SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 879 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAJPAL Sll\IGH (Civil Appeal No. 6!>87 of 2008) NOVEMBER 7·, 2008 ·. · [C.K. THAKKER AND ·o.K. JAIN, JJ.] Army Service:. A .B Army Rules, 1954; r. 13(2A), 13(3)(i), (iifand (iii): c Junior Commissioned Officer placed in low medical category (Permanent) - Incumbent expressing his willingness to continue in service - Release Medical Board recommending discharge of incumbent from service :... Challenge to - High Court holding discharge of incumbent D illegal in terms of r. 13(3)(i)(ii) of the Rules since it was done without the recommendations/holding of Invalidating Board . - Review Petition dismissed by High Court - Correctness of - Held: For discharge on medical 9rounds, clause (/)(//) of · the table appended to r. 13 of the Rules clearly and E unambiguously stipulates that discharge in such cases. has to be carried out only as per recommi9ndations of Invalidating Board - Authorities bound to follow the prescribed rule while discharging army personnel from service on medical grounds - Order of discharge passed by the authority without F subjecting the incumbent to Invalidating Board, would fall foul of the prescribed statutory rule - Although, discharge is purportedly shown to be also on account of non-availability of sheltered appointment but the main ground for discharge was on account of permanent low mecfical category- Hence, G the High Court rightly held that the discharge was not in accordance with the prescribed procedure and, therefore, illega.1- Interpretation of Statutes -Army Act, 1950- s.191. 879 H UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAJPAL SINGH 881 of the Table, appended to the rule 13, the manner of A discharge is clearly laid out. It is plain that a discharge on the ground of having been found "medically unfit for further service" is specifically dealt with in Column (I) (ii) of the Table, which stipulates that discharge in such a case is to be carried out only on the recommendation of 8 the Invalidating Board. [Paira 18] [895-E-H; 896-A-C] 1 :3. It is well settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously ,observe those standards on C pain of invalidation of an act in violaticm of them. [Para 20] [896-F] Vitera/Ii vs. Saton 359 U.S. 535: Law Ed (Second series) 1012, referred to. o 1.4. It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of a Statute that only those cases or situations can be covered under a residual ht~ad, which are not covered under a specific head. It is, therefore, clear that only those cases of discharge would fall within the ambit of the E residual head, which are not covered under the preceding specific heads. In other words, if a Junior Commissioned Officer is to be discharged from the service on the ground of "medically unfit for further service", irrespective of the fact whether he is or was in a low F medical category, his order of discharge can be made only on the recommendation of an Invalidating Board. The said rule being clear and unambiguous is capable of only this interpretation and no other. [Para 18] [895-H; 896- A, B, C] G 1.5. This Court is in complete agreement with the High Court that where a JCO is sought to be discharged on the ground of medical unfitm~ss for further service, his case has to be dealt with strictlly in accordance with the procedure contemplated in Clause I (ii) in Column 2 of the H 882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R. · A .Table appended to r.13 of the Rules. Any order of · discharge passed without subjecting him to Invalidating .Board would fall foul of the said statutory rule. [Para 22] . [897-E-F] . . · . '· 8 t.6. Appellants were bound to follow Rule 13 (3) (I) (ii),; more. so having placed the. respondent in low medical . category (permanent) for a, period ·of two years from October; .2001 he was discharged from service on 31st August, 2002, relying on the recommendation of the,: Re- categorisation Board held on 24th October, 2001. As C noted in the show cause notice, the said Board had placed the respondent in "permanent low medical category". Be that as it may, the main ground of discharge being medical ·unfitness for further service, the appellants were bound to follow the prescribed rule. [Para 19] [896- D D-E] . . Sukhdev Singh & Ors. vs. Bhagatram. Sardar Singh . Raghuva
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.