VEERENDRA KUMAR DUBEY versus CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 10 S.C.R. 1013 · Decided: 16-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 10 S.C.R. 1013 
VEERENDRA KUMAR DUBEY 
v. 
CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal D.No. 32135 of2015) 
OCTOBER 16, 2015 
[ T.S. THAKUR, V. GOPALA GOWDA AND 
R. BANUMATHI, JJ. ] 
A 
B 
Service Law- Disciplinary inquiry- Whether required -
In case of discharge under r. 13(11/)(v) of Army Rules, 1953 rl C 
w. Army HQ letter NO. A/150101150/AGIPS-2(c) dated 28th 
December, 1988- Discharge of delinquent without following 
the procedure for discharge laid down under the letter dated 
28th December, 1988 - On the ground that he had been 0 
awarded four 'red ink entries' - Held: R. 13 does not in specific 
terms envisage an inquiry - However, the letter dated 2EJlh 
December, 1988 prescribes for an impartial inquiry-As per 
the procedure laid in letter dated 28th December, 1988 it is 
not mandatory to discharge on the ground of four 'red ink E 
entries' - Thus discharge on this ground has no statutory 
sanction - Its genesis lies in administrative instructions -
Therefore, administrative instructions would regulate the 
exercise of power to discharge -
The letter dated 281h 
December, 1988 provides safeguards against an unfair and F 
improper use of power which ifleft unregulated or uncanalised 
would offend Art. 14 of the Constitution - The administrative 
instructions neither breached nor encroached into the tenitory 
covered by the statute - In the present case, the discharge 
order was passed without taking into consideration the factors G 
made relevant under Note to Para 5(f) of the letter - It was 
necessary by the competent authority to hold an inquiry for 
finding out the defence of the delinquent besides 
consideration of the factors provided under Note to Para 5(f) 
H 
1013 
1014 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A - The order of discharge is set aside - Since the delinquent 
has superannuated, he would be treated to have been in 
service, till he would have completed the qualifying service 
for grant of pension - No back wage$ are granted -Army HQ 
Letter NO. A/15010!150/AG!PS-2(c) dated 281h December, 
B 
1988. 
Administrative Law-Administrative Instructions- Scope 
of - Held: Administrative instructions cannot make inroads 
into statutory rights of an individual - But if an administrative 
C authority prescribes a certain procedural safeguard against 
arbitrary exercise of powers, such safeguards or procedural 
equity and fairness will not fall foul of the rule or called ultra 
vires the statute. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court. 
HELD: 1. A plain reading of r. 13 of Army Rules, 1953 
makes it abundantly clear that the rule does not provide 
for anything beyond an opportunity to the individual 
E concerned to show cause against his contemplated 
discharge before the competent authority passes any 
such order of discharge. On a strict interpretation of Rule 
13(111)(V), therefore, one could perhaps say that the letter 
of the law has been complied with inasmuch as an 
F opportunity has been afforded to the appellant to show 
cause against the contemplated discharge. [Para 8] 
(1025-G-H; 1026-A-B] 
2. However, the Government has, stipulated not only 
G a show cause notice which is an indispensable part of 
the requirement of Rule 13 but also an impartial enquiry 
into the allegations against him in which he is entitled to 
an adequate opportunity of putting up his defence and 
adducing evidence in support thereof. More importantly, 
H certain inbuilt safeguards against discharge from service 
VEERENDRA KUMAR DUBEYv. CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF 1015 
&ORS. 
based on four red ink entries have also been prescribed. A 
Mere award of four red ink entries to an individual does 
not make his discharge mandatory. It simply pushes the 
individual concerned into a grey area where he can be 
considered for discharge. Four red ink entries in that 
sense takes the individual closer to discharge but does B 
not push him over. T.he Commanding Officer is, even after 
the award of such entries, required to consider the nature 
of the offence for which such entries have been awarded 
and other aspects made relevant by the Government in 
the procedure it has prescribed. [Para 8) [1026-B-G] 
C 
3. What is evident from the procedural mandate given 
to the authorities is to ensure that discharge is not 
ordered mechanically and that the process leading to 
the discharge of an individual is humanized by the D 
requirement of an impartial enquiry into the matter and 
fair opportunity to the concerned especially when he is 
a

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