VIJAY SHANKAR MISHRA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 12 S.C.R. 200 · Decided: 15-12-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2016] 12 S.C.R. 200 
VIJAY SHANKAR MISHRA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.12179-12180of2016) 
B 
DECEMBER 15, 2016 
c 
D 
E 
F 
(T. S. THAKUR, CJI AND DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.] 
Armed Forces: 
Army Rules, 1954 - r.13(3)Table(lll)(v) - Discharge from 
service - Unsatisfactory conduct - Army Medical Corps - Appellant 
discharged from service on the ground that his conduct had not 
been satisfactory - Further, he was denied disability pension on 
the ground that he had earned six red ink entries in his service -
Held: There was no application of mind by the authorities to the 
circumstances to be taken into consideration while exercising power' 
u/r.13 - Mere fact that appellant had crossed the threshold·of four 
red entries not a ground to discharge him without considering other 
relevant circu111stances including (i) the nature of the violation which 
led to the award of the red ink entries; (ii) whether the appellant 
had been exposed to duty in hard stations and to difficult condi-
tions; (iii) long years of service, just short of co111pleting the quali-
fying period of pension - Since, the appellant would have attained 
the age of superannuation, the ends of justice would be met if he is 
treated to have been in service till the time he would have completed 
the qualifying service for grant of pension - No back-wages 
admissible - Benefit of continuity of service for all other purposes 
to be granted including pension - Pension Regulations for the Army 
1961(Part-I) - r.132 - Service Law - Pension. 
The appellant was enrolled in the Army Medical Corps. He was 
discharged from service u/r. 13(3) Table Ill (v) of the Army ~ules, 1954 
on the ground that his conduct had not been found satisfactory. The 
G 
appellant was also denied disability pension. The appellant filed a writ 
petition before the High Court, which directed reconsideration of his 
case. However, the authorities concerned rejected his claim for pen-
sion on the ground that he had not completed 15 years' of qualifying 
service for grant of pension and tliat he had been punished while in 
I-I 
service on nine occasions inclusive of six red ink entries. The appellant 
200 
VIJA Y SHANKAR MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 
20 l 
again filed a writ petition before the High Court which was transferred 
A 
to the Armed Forces Tribunal. Application filed by appellant was dis-
missed by the Tribunal. 
· 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the present case, it is evident that there was 
no application of mind by the authorities to the circumstances B 
which have to be taken into consideration while exercising the 
power under Rule 13 of the Army Rules, 1954. The mere fact 
that the appellant had crossed the threshold of four red entries 
could not be a ground to discharge him without considering other 
relevant circumstances inCiuding (i) the nature of the violation 
C 
which led to the award of the red ink entries; (ii) whether the 
appellant had been exposed to duty in hard stations and to difficult 
living conditions; (iii) long years of service, just short of 
completing the qualifying period for pension. Even after the High 
Court specifically directed consideration of his case bearing in 
mind the provisions of the circular dated 10 January 1989, the D 
relevant factors were not borne in mind. The order that was 
passed subsequently, failed to consider relevant and germane 
circumstances arid does not indicate a due application of mind to 
the requirements of the letter of Army Headquarters and the 
circular dated 10 January 1989. [Para 8) (239-E-G) 
2. The Armed Forces Tribunal was, therefore, in error in 
rejecting the application filed by the appellant. The orders of the 
Tribmial;i,re set aside. Since the appellant would have attained 
the age of superannuation, the ends of justice would be met if he 
is treated to have been in service till the time he would have 
completed the qualifying service for grant of pension. No back-
wages shall however be admissible. The benefit of continuity of 
service for all other purposes shall be granted to the appellant 
including pension. [Para 9) [239-H; 240-A-B] 
Veerendra Kumar Dubey v. Chief of Army Staff (2016) 
2 SCC 627 : 2015 (10) SCR 1013 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2015 (10) SCR 1013 
referred to 
Para 7 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 12179-
E 
F 
G 
H 
202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
12180of2016. 
B 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.09.

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