ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, CHENNAI OANo ...

1ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, CHENNAIO.A.No.68 of 2012Friday, the 19 th day of April, 2013THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH(MEMBER - JUDICIAL)ANDTHE HONOURABLE LT GEN (RETD) ANAND MOHAN VERMA(MEMBER – ADMINISTRATIVE)No. 2610215W Ex SepA Karunai UdaiyarajanS/o Shri ArumugamSelvanayagapuram VillageVenneervailkal (Post) – 623 04Muthukulathur TalukRamanathapuram DistrictTamil Nadu.By Legal Practitioner:Mr. V. Parthiban for M/s. Ayyar&Iyer… ApplicantVs.1. Union of India, - Represented byThe Secretary to the Government of India,Ministry of Defence,South Block, DHQ (PO)New Delhi - 110011.2. The General Officer Commanding in ChiefHeadquartersSouthern CommandPune - 411 001.3. The CommandantMadras Regimental CentreWellington – 643 231(The Nilgiris)By Mr.B.Shanthakumar, SPC… Respondents

2ORDER(Order of the Tribunal made byHon’ble Justice V.PeriyaKaruppiah, Member-Judicial)1. This application has been filed by the applicant praying for a directionto call for the records in respect of the proceedings No.A/2406002/525/DV-3dated 30.11.2011, issued under the signature of 2 ndrespondent andforwarded by 3 rdrespondent in the letter dated 31.1.2012 arising outunactioned and returned non-statutory petition of February, 2011 and toquash the same and to further lift the regimental veil in not considering thestatutory petition dated 22.12.2011 filed under Section-164 of the Army Actand also to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service withall consequential and attendant benefits in the substantial interest of equityand fairness within the time limit and also to pass suitable other directions.2. The case of the applicant as stated in the application would be asfollows :-The applicant was enrolled as a Sepoy in the Madras Regiment on26.6.2002. After undergoing training, he was posted to 27 MADRAS. Hewas further re-posted to 54, Rashtriya Rifle till 2007.On 5.8.2007, theapplicant was granted 64 days of annual leave commenced from 6.8.2007 to

38.10.2007. The applicant left home on 4.10.2007 to rejoin duty. When hewas travelling in a bus from Madurai to Chennai, when he checked hisbaggages at Trichy bus station, the suitcase containing his Identity Card wasfound missing and he was worried about the punishment in the unit for theloss of Identity Card and, therefore, he was hesitant to go to unit and didnot also want to go back home. When he was sitting in the bus stand atChennai, one of the passengers took him to Salem for a job and theapplicant worked with one Vel Murugan Drillers Borewells vehicle,Thiruchenkodu, as a helper till 4.3.2010.However, his mother lodged acomplaint about the missing of son with the local Police Station atMuthukulathur. The applicant had spoken to his uncle about his position andsince his uncle told him to return back home, he took leave with VelMurugan Drillers Borewells vehicle on 5.3.2010 and reached his native placeSelvanayagapuram, where his parents and relatives reside. On 8.3.2010 at7.00 P.M., the Muthukulathur Police apprehended the applicant on the basisof his mother’s complaint and on the next day they took him to Tiruchy andhanded over to the Territorial Army Battalion. Thereafter, the applicant wassubject to Summary Court Martial on 2.1.2011 for over-staying leave andlosing Identity Card. The charges were framed against the applicant underSection-39(b) and 54(b) of the Army Act for over-staying the leave and forthe loss of Identity Card, respectively.After the examination of thewitnesses in the Summary Court Martial, the applicant was asked to make a

4statement in terms of Army Rules 23(1), (2), (3) and (4). The applicantrealised his mistake and accepted his guilt and sought pardon and requestedto consider his case sympathetically and he may be retained his service.However, the request of the applicant was not accepted, but the extremepenalty of dismissal of service was imposed by the 3 rdrespondent. Theapplicant was graded exemplary, but for the allegations tried in SummaryCourt Martial. The said conviction and sentence for the aforesaid offenceswere issued under the signature of NS Rao, Officiating Adjutant forOfficiating Commandant, the Madras Regimental Centre.The said Officerwas well below the rank of Brigade Commander and not competent to issuethe impugned proceedings.During the recording of evidence, thedepositions were not interpreted and the signatures were not obtained. Theapplicant preferred a non-statutory petition to the 2 ndrespondent againstthe impugned sentence during February, 2011, but it was sent withoutsignature due to inadvertence. The said petition was immediately returnedby 2 nd respondent as unactioned in its proceedings dated 25.2.2011, and thesaid petition was not re-submitted to any authorities. However, he had senta statutory petition dated 22.12.2011 under Section-164 of Army Act, forjust consideration and orders. The 2 nd respondent, after getting the saidpetition, innocuously rejected the application unactioned dated February,2011, by stating that orders were passed in the statutory petition sentduring February, 2011 on 30.11.2011. The said action of the respondents is

5a clear after-thought and short-circuiting the rule of law. The respondentsmight have conspired to reject the claim of the applicant and the saidconspiracy should be brought to light by piercing the regimental veil of therespondents.The applicant sent a representation on 9.2.2012 to the 2 ndrespondent marking a copy to 3 rd respondent immediately on receipt of theimpugned proceedings dated 30.11.2011 received on 31.1.2012. There wasno response from the 2 nd respondent. The applicant is aggrieved andconstrained to approach this Tribunal for quashing the impugnedproceedings and to issue necessary directions to the respondents toreinstate the applicant into service with all attendant and consequentialbenefits. The application may thus be allowed.3. The objections raised by the respondents in the Counter would be asfollows :-The applicant was no doubt enrolled in the Army and was grantedleave as stated in the application. For over-staying without sufficient causeand for losing the Identity Card by neglect, he was tried by a SummaryCourt Martial.The charge-sheet was handed over to the applicant on28.1.2011 and the Summary Court Martial was held on 2.2.2011. Theaccused pleaded guilty to both the charges. Apart from that, the trial wasconducted and after due compliance of Army Rule-115(2), the Officerholding the trial, found the applicant guilty and he was sentenced to be

6dismissed from service. The sentence was also promulgated on the sameday. The applicant submitted a petition during February, 2011, addressed toGOC-in-C, Southern Command, and the said petition was returned to theapplicant on 25.2.2011.Since no petition was received under Army ActSection-164(2) even after a period of one month, HQ Southern Command,asked to process the case and accordingly the documents were forwarded toHQ ATNK & K Area (DV) vide Madras Regimental Centre letter dated2.6.2011, who in turn, forwarded to HQ Southern Command, through theirletter dated 16.6.2011. GOC-in-C, Southern Command, rejected the petitionin a reasoned order. The directions of GOC-in-C were received at MadrasRegimental Centre on 15.12.2011.However, a second petition dated22.12.2011 was sent by the applicant. But directions were received byMadras Regimental Centre even before that petition. A courier was sent byMadras Regimental Centre for handing over the direction of GOC-in-C andthe applicant was not available at his home and, therefore, he wassubsequently informed at the work place on 28.12.2011.The applicantavoided signing the documents on one pretext or other. Therefore, the copyof directions were forwarded to him through Registered Post on 31.1.2012.This would show that the directions of GOC-in-C were initiated even beforethe second petition submitted by the applicant. As the second petition wasinitiated after the rejection of the first petition, it was returned to theapplicant through a letter of Madras Regimental Centre dated 21.2.2012,

7since only one petition under Army Act Section-164(2) could be filed. Theapplicant was granted 64 days annual leave from 6.8.2007 to 8.10.2007.The applicant’s case that he left home on 4.10.2007 was contradicted by hismother’s statement in her complaint to Superintendent of Police by statingthat he left home on 6.10.2007 only. In a Habeas Corpus petition filed bythe mother before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, she said thatthe applicant stayed with her till 6.10.2007.Therefore, the case of theapplicant that he started from home on 4.10.2007 and travelled in a buswhere he lost the suitcase containing Identity Card could not be true. It ispertinent to note that the applicant pleaded guilty during the trial and hehad not cross-examined the witnesses and had conceded the guilt.TheCourt found him guilty and accordingly sentenced him to be dismissed fromservice. The said conviction and sentence passed against the applicant arequite legal and as per rules. The Adjutant/Officiating Adjutant is competentto sign the promulgation order and it is, therefore, not illegal. Theprocedures as contemplated under Army Rules were scrupulously followed.The recording of evidence was also done properly and there would be norequirement of signature of the interpreter since the independent witnesssigned in the proceedings. The punishment awarded by the Summary CourtMartial is just and legal and proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Theapplicant had proved himself as an indisciplined solder by not only overstayingleave on two occasions without any justification and also lost his

8Identity Card. He had also worked with private persons by over-staying theleave and this would show the indiscipline of the applicant. No injustice hasbeen done by the respondents in awarding the dismissal order. The Army isa disciplined organization and illegal absence of almost 2½ years is notacceptable in the organization. The applicant was dismissed from serviceafter following all the legal procedures. Therefore, there is no necessity tointerfere in the conviction and the sentence passed by the Summary CourtMartial and also in rejecting the statutory petition filed during February,2011 by the applicant, confirming the conviction and punishment given bythe Summary Court Martial. Therefore, the application may be dismissed asdevoid of merits.4. On the above pleadings, the following points were framed forconsideration :-1) Whether the impugned Order dated 30.11.2011 signed by the2 nd respondent, which was forwarded by the 3 rd respondent in itsletter dated 31.1.2012, is liable to be quashed ?2) Whether the statutory petition dated 22.12.2011 filed underSection-164 of the Army Act, ought to have been considered bythe 2 nd respondent ?

93) Whether the applicant is entitled for reinstatement into servicewith all consequential and attendant benefits ?4) To what relief the applicant is entitled for ?5. Heard Mr. V. Parthiban for M/s. Ayyar & Iyer, Learned Counsel for theapplicant and Mr. B. Shanthakumar, Learned Senior Panel Counsel assistedby Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, Learned JAG Officer, appearing for the respondents.6. The Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit in his argumentthat the applicant was enrolled in Madras Regiment on 26.6.2002. While hewas in service, he was granted 64 days of annual leave with effect from6.8.2007 to 8.10.2007 and after completion of the leave, he has started torejoin duty and while he was on his way to Chennai in a Madurai to Chennaibound bus, he lost his suitcase at Tiruchy bus stand in which his IdentityCard was placed. He would also submit that since the applicant was scaredof punishment for losing the Identity Card, he was hesistant to either goover to the unit to join duty or to return home and while he was sitting atChennai bus stand, he was taken by one of the passengers to Salem for ajob in Velmurugan Drillers Borewells vehicle, Thiruchenkodu, where heworked till 4.3.2010. he would also submit that he was apprehended by theMuthukulathur Police on the complaint of his mother when he was at hisnative place on 8.3.2010 and was handed over to the Territorial Army

10Battalion and from there he was taken to his unit and the Summary CourtMartial proceedings have been initiated on two charges, namely underSection-39(b) of Army Act for over-staying leave granted to him and underSection-54(b) of Army Act for losing by neglect the Identity Card, which isthe property of the Government issued to him for his use. The applicant hadpleaded guilty on the fond hope that he would be given lesser punishmentand would be ordered reinstatement in the service, but his request was notheeded but a punishment of dismissal from service was ordered against him.He would also submit that the applicant had submitted a non-statutorypetition dated February, 2011, before the competent authority against thepunishment of dismissal from service, but it was returned unactioned since itwas unsigned by the applicant. However, the applicant had submitted yetanother statutory petition under Section-164 of the Army Act on22.12.2011. But it was rejected as if the petition submitted duringFebruary, 2011, was ordered on 30.11.2011 and the 2 ndpetition was notsustainable since there was already a statutory petition filed by theapplicant.He would submit in his argument that the said Order dated30.11.2011 was unscrupulously cooked up for the purpose of rejecting thestatutory petition dated 22.12.2011.In the said statutory petition dated22.12.2011, the applicant had elaborately challenged the verdict ofSummary Court Martial and the 2 ndrespondent rejected the said petitionsince those points should have embarrassed him. He would also submit that

11the rejection of the statutory petition dated 22.12.2011 moved underSection-164 of the Army Act, should have been set aside and thereby thedismissal order passed by the Summary Court Martial should consequentiallybe set aside and the applicant be reinstated in service. He would furthersubmit that the mandatory provisions of convening Summary Court Martialwere not followed and the Summary Court Martial had exceeded its powers.The punishment under Section-39(d) of Army Act for absence without leavecould be a maximum period of three years imprisonment or such lesspunishment as defined in the Act. But the larger punishment of dismissalfrom service was imposed for the absence without leave. He would furthersubmit that the other procedures for translation of evidence and recording offindings on conviction, promulgation of verdict have not been followed bythe Summary Court Martial as slated in the statute (Army Act, 1950). Hewould also submit that the character of the applicant was exemplary and hewas not able to rejoin army after the expiry of the leave granted to himowing to the reasons as stated in the application and there was anyunwillingness on the part of the applicant to serve in the army. He wouldfurther submit in his argument that the rejection of the statutory petitionfiled under Section-164 of the Army Act was ordered with a malafideintention and the earlier order passed on 30.11.2011 was a cooked-up oneon an unactioned petition already returned by the 2 ndrespondent and onthat score itself the impugned order passed on 30.11.2011 on the

12application dated February, 2011, and the rejection of the statutory petitiondated 22.12.2011 ought to have been set aside and the verdict pronouncedin the Summary Court Martial be consequently set aside and the applicantmay be ordered to be reinstated in service.7. Learned Senior Panel Counsel, would submit in his argument that theapplicant himself admitted that he lost his Identity Card during transit fromMadurai to Chennai at Tiruchy bus stand.This would show that theapplicant was not pursuing his carrier or loss of his Identity Card since hedid not give any Police complaint immediately. Per contra, he had neitherproceeded to the work place nor to his house, but went with some strangerto Salem for undertaking a job and worked for three years. He would alsosubmit that the mother of the applicant had given a complaint toMuthukulathur Police wherein she has stated that the applicant was missingfrom the native place and he was with her till 6.10.2007 during his annualleave. However, the applicant had detailed in his application that he startedfrom his native place on 4.10.2007 in order to rejoin service after the expiryof leave which would palpably be a falsehood. He would also submit that theOrder passed in the first statutory petition which was unsigned by theapplicant was bonafide disposed of by the competent authority on30.11.2011. The said order passed by the competent authority was sentthrough a courier by Madras Regimental Centre, who approached the

13applicant at his home address initially, subsequently at the place of work on28.12.2011 for obtaining signature. But the applicant was avoiding signingdocuments on one pretention or other and, therefore, a Registered Post wassent on 31.1.2012 in order to inform the order passed in the statutorypetition dated February, 2011. Therefore, he would submit that the orderwas not a hatched one on seeing the second petition of the applicant dated22.12.2011. He would further submit that the applicant does not deserve tobe reinstated in service and he was rightly dismissed from service for thenegligence of losing his Identity Card as well as the inaction on the part ofthe applicant for not tracing the said Identity Card. He would further submitthat the applicant was merrily working in Tiruchenkodu, Salem District,without thinking of rejoining service for nearly three years and he was not,therefore, entitled to ask for reinstatement. He would further submit thatthe applicant could not pinpoint the defects of the Summary Court Martialproceedings as it was done properly in accordance with law. Especially whenthe applicant had pleaded guilty, even though there was no need to examinewitnesses, the witnesses speaking about the circumstances of arresting theapplicant and for bringing him from the place of arrest to the Court Martialwere adduced in evidence and the verdict was given on the basis of thepleading guilty by the applicant and the corroborative evidence. He wouldfurther submit that the competent authority was right in dismissing thestatutory petition filed in February, 2011, upholding the procedure followed

14by the Summary Court Martial as correct. The confirming of the verdict wasalso not liable to be set aside. He would further submit that the rejection ofthe second statutory petition was also not assailable since an earlier orderwas passed already in the application dated February, 2011 based upon thephotocopy retained by the respondent.He would, therefore, submit thatthere could not be any discrimination against the applicant nor any violationof Articles 17, 21 and 41 of the Constitution of India.He would furthersubmit that if for any reason the applicant is reinstated, it would be a badprecedent for other soldiers since the applicant had lost his Identity Cardand proved himself as a bad example and abstained from service by overstaying for a period of more than 2½ years. He would, therefore, submitthat the application may be dismissed as devoid of merits.8. We have given anxious considerations to the arguments advanced oneither side.9. Points 1 to 3: The case of the applicant that he was enrolled in theArmy in the year 2002 and while serving as a Soldier, he was granted leavefrom 6.8.2007 to 8.10.2007, and he started from his native place on4.10.2007 to join his duty, but he had lost his Identity Card at Tiruchy busstand when his suitcase was stolen and, therefore, he could not join duty norreturn to his native place and, therefore, he had over-stayed the leave

15granted, were not entirely admitted by the respondents. According to theapplicant, the applicant was hesitant to return home owing to the loss ofIdentity Card and, therefore, he accompanied a person of Salem, whopromised him to give a job at Vel Murugan Drillers Borewells vehicle,Thiruchenkodu, Salem District. The applicant had admitted in his applicationthat he worked at Thiruchenkodu till 4.3.2010. Therefore, it is very clearthat the applicant did not disclose his place of employment or hiswherebaouts either to his home or to the unit, where he was serving. Ifreally the applicant had lost the Identity Card in Tiruchy bus stand, he oughtto have given a Police complaint as a dutiful soldier of the Indian Army. Noexplanation has been offered by the applicant for not giving such acomplaint with the Police. The case of the applicant that he left the villageon 4.10.2007 to join duty was falsified by the complaint given by his motherthat the applicant was staying with her at the native village till 6.10.2007.Similarly, in a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the mother of the applicantbefore Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, she stated that the applicantwas staying with her till 6.10.2007 and thereafter, he vanished.Suchcontentions raised by the respondents in the Counter were not retracted norshown as wrong by the applicant.In the said circumstances, we couldpresume that the discrepancy in the date of leaving the native placeVasudevanallur by the applicant on 4.10.2007, has not been explained and,therefore, it cannot be believed.

1610. It is not disputed that the applicant was apprehended at his nativevillage on 8.3.2010 when he visited his native place at the request of hismaternal uncle on 4.3.2010. After apprehension by the MuthukulathurPolice, he was handed over to Tiruchy Territorial Army Battalion and thus hewas brought to unit and Summary Court Martial proceedings have beeninitiated. After the initiation of Summary Court Martial proceedings, theapplicant was proceeded on two charges under Section-39(b) and 54(b) ofthe Army Act on the following charges :-“First Charge under Army Act Sec 39(b) :-“WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE OVERSTAYING LEAVEGRANTED TO HIM” – in that heAt field, on 06 Aug 2007, having been granted leave of absencefrom 06 Aug 2007 to 08 Octo 2007 to proceed to his home,failed without sufficient cause, to rejoing at 54 Rashtriya Rifles(MADRAS) on 08 Octo 2007 (AN) on expiry of said leave andremained so absent till he was apprehended by HC-71 Muthaiahand Grd 1517 A Murugesn of Mudukalathur Police station,Ramanathapuram-District on 09 Mar 2010 at 1015 hrs andhanded over to 117 Inf Bn (TA) The Guards on 09 March 2010 at1310 hrs, who further handed him over to No 2590940Y Hav Anil

17Kumar PC of the Madras Regimental Centre on 17 Mar 2010 at1800hrs.Second Charge Army Act Sec 54(b):“LOSING BY NEGLECT IDENTITY CARD THE PROPERTY OFGOVERNMENT ISSUED TO HIM FOR HIS USE” – In that he, atMadurai on 05 Oct 2007 while traveling by bus from Madurai toChennai, negligently lost his Identity Card bearing machine No.E-594898, the property of the Government, issued to him for hisuse.”The applicant had pleaded guilty on both the charges. Theapprehension of the applicant and the production of the applicant with theTerritorial Army Battalion at Tiruchy and the production of the applicantbefore the unit had been spoken by the prosecution witnesses 1 to 3. TheOfficer presiding over the Summary Court Martial after considering all theevidence and circumstances and the pleading guilty by the applicant, hadpassed an order of conviction and punishment of dismissal from service.The relevant records regarding the Summary Court Martial have beenproduced. On a careful perusal of those records, the convening of SummaryCourt Martial and the conduct of the proceedings, framing of charges,recording of evidence, pleading of the accused, conduct of every

18proceedings, pronouncement of verdict were found to be in accordance withlaw.11. The contention raised by the applicant was that the dismissal fromservice imposed against the applicant as a punishment was notcontemplated under Section-39(d) of the Army Act and it is a higherpunishment than the punishment mentioned in the said Section. For betterappreciation of the contention, the provision of Section-39(d) of Army Act, isnecessarily to be extracted :-12. In the said provision, we could see that the maximum period ofimprisonment to be imposed for an offences under Section-39(b) of theArmy Act would be three years or any other lesser punishment ascontemplated in the Act.As regards the punishment of dismissal fromservice, it has been provided under Section-71(e) of the Army Act. Couldthe punishment of dismissal be higher punishment than three yearspunishment ? The contention raised by the applicant was that the dismissalfrom service is a higher punishment than the imprisonment of three years.On a careful perusal of the construction of Section-71 of the Army Act, thepunishment listed in Section-71(a) to (e) is in a descending order in whichthe dismissal from service is arranged after the death sentence andimprisonment provisions. Therefore, it can not be said that the dismissalfrom service is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges against theapplicant.

1913. The conduct of the Summary Court Martial was dealt by the competentauthority in the statutory petition filed by the applicant during February,2011. It is an admitted case that the applicant had presented a statutorypetition of February, 2011, without putting a specific date and withoutputting his signature. The said application was photocopied according to therespondents and was retained by them. The case of the applicant was thatit was returned unactioned and it was also evidenced by a letter written bythe applicant.However, there was an order passed by the competentauthority by confirming the sentence passed by the Summary Court Martialon 30.11.2011. The specific case of the applicant was that the applicationwas returned unactioned and, therefore, it should not be considered by thecompetent authority as a statutory petition to be filed under Section-164.Similarly, he would also plead that the said order dated 30.11.2011 waspassed only after the receipt of the second statutory petition sent by him on22.12.2011 and, therefore, it was a cooked-up order. The contention of therespondents was that the applicant had evaded the receipt of the orderpassed on 30.11.2011 when it was sent by courier even before the date ofhis second statutory petition and knowing full well that an order was passedon the photocopy of the earlier application he sent, the second statutorypetition, which was not in time, was sent by the applicant. Considering thefacts and circumstances, we could understand that the earlier petition filedby the applicant during February, 2011, was without signature and without a

20specific date in February, 2011. No doubt, it was sent by the applicant andit was returned as unactioned by the 2 ndrespondent. However, the 2 ndrespondent had taken up the said petition as a statutory petition since therewas no reply from the applicant, by sending the said petition by putting hissignature in the unactioned statutory petition within a reasonable time ofone month and an order was passed.When a statutory petition has notbeen filed and on reference by the Summary Court Martial, the competentauthority is empowered to confirm the sentence imposed by the SummaryCourt Martial under Section-153 of Army Act. Therefore, the order passedon the unsigned application sent by the applicant for the confirmation of thesentence passed by the Summary Court Martial cannot be challenged by theapplicant as it was not sent by him or it was returned as unactioned.Moreover, the second statutory petition was sent by the applicant after along gap without any reason on 22.12.2011. By that time, the competentauthority authorized under Section-153 and 164(2) of the Army Act, hadpassed the order on 30.11.2011 by confirming the sentence passed by theSummary Court Martial.In the said circumstances, the second statutorypetition could not be considered by the competent authority since an orderof confirmation had already been passed either on the photocopy of theunactioned application submitted by the applicant or under the provisions ofSection-153 of Army Act.In the said circumstances, the rejection of thesecond statutory petition cannot be said as illegal nor the order of

21confirmation of the verdict of Summary Court Martial passed on the firstapplication dated February, 2011, held illegal.14. When we go into the merits of confirming the sentence passed by theSummary Court Martial, the competent authority had discussed the pointsthat the accused had pleaded guilty to both the charges and the Officerholding the trial found him guilty and rightly sentenced him to be dismissedfrom service. Apart from that, the reasons put forth by the applicant that hewas a poor soldier and his plea for reinstatement were considered, and inorder to maintain discipline, such reinstatement was negatived and thesentence of dismissal was found commensurate with the gravity and natureof the offences. The competent authority even though not required to givereasons for registering confirmation of the findings of the Summary CourtMartial as per the Judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1990SC, 1984 between S.N. Mukherji Vs. Union of India, proper reasons weregiven by the competent authority. The applicant had uttered a lie regardingthe time of departure from his native place to rejoin service could beevidenced in the application itself and the conduct of the applicant as told byhim in losing the Identity Card and his failure to give a Police complaint,would show that he was not a prudent solider to act at relevant times andhis silence and his accepting an alternative employment at Thiruchenkodu,Salem, without informing his family as well as the serving unit for aboutthree years would show that he does not deserve reinstatement in service

22and even the dismissal order is not liable to be set aside.In the saidcircumstances, the applicant is not entitled for the reliefs of setting aside theorders passed by the 2 ndrespondent in the statutory petition datedFebruary, 2011, on 30.11.2011, and also the rejection order passed on thesecond statutory petition filed on 22.12.2011. He is also not found entitledfor reinstatement in the service.Accordingly, all the three points aredecided against the applicant.15. Point No.4: In view of our discussion held above, we find that theapplicant is not entitled to any relief sought for in the application.Accordingly, the application is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.16. In fine, the application is dismissed. However, there is no order as tocosts.Sd/-JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAHMEMBER (J)Sd/-LT GEN (Retd) ANAND MOHAN VERMAMEMBER (A)19.4.2013Member (J) – Index : Yes / NoMember (A)– Index : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / NoNCS

23To,1. Union of India, - Represented byThe Secretary to the Government of India,Ministry of Defence,South Block, DHQ (PO)New Delhi - 110011.2. The General Officer Commanding in ChiefHeadquartersSouthern CommandPune - 411 001.3. The CommandantMadras Regimental CentreWellington – 643 231(The Nilgiris).4. Mr. V. Parthiban forM/s. Ayyar&Iyer,Counsel for applicant.5. Mr.B.Shanthakumar,Senior Panel Counsel6. OIC, Legal Cell,ATNK & K Area,Chennai-600009.7. Library, AFT, Chennai.

24HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAHMEMBER (JUDICIAL)ANDHON’BLE LT GEN (RETD) ANAND MOHAN VERMAMEMBER (ADMINISTRATIVE)O.A.No.68 of 201219.04.2013