Ex Rect Ajeet Singh (Army) vs UOI & Others on 10 April 2026

O R D E R

10/04/2026

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying that the Summary court Martial (SCM) proceedings conducted against the applicant and the Dismissal Order may be quashed and set aside and the applicant be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. He has also prayed thatany other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the applicant alongwith costs of the application.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 31/3/2004.After his joining the service, when the parents of the applicant did not hear anything from the applicant since October 2004, they lodged a First Information Report at the Police station, Kumher District Bharatpur on 26/2/2005 with a copy to the Commandant, Guards Regimental Centre, Annexure A/2. In response to the FIR, Regimental Centre, vide its letter dated 02/4/2005, informed the parents of the applicant that their son ie, applicant herein, had left the Centre on 18/12/2004 without information to anyone and as such, he has been declared a deserter, Annexure A/3. Thereafter, the applicant reported to ZilaSainik Board, Bharatpur on 31/5/2005 and expressed his desire to join the Training Centre. After examining his matter and keeping in view the financial condition, the ZilaSainikKalyanAdhikari, vide his letter dated 31/5/2005, despatched the applicant to the Adjutant, Guards Regimental Centre, Kamptee, Annexure A/4. The applicant was subjected to SCM, which was held at 1230 hours and closed at 1330 hours, meaning thereby that the said SCM was conducted within an hour. Though the applicant accepted his guilt but he was neither afforded any opportunityto cross examine the witnesses produced in those proceedings nor was he provided with any opportunity to lead his evidence in his defence. Even the ‘Friend of the Accused’ appointed was also from his unit and he did not make any request to allow any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. It is just and proper to mention here that the charge levelled against the applicant was not proved by leading any cogent and reliable evidence. Admittedly, the applicant pleaded ‘Guilty’ on the ground that he was mentally upset, as such, he deserted the Centre. Therefore, it was necessary for the prosecution to have lead evidence to prove the charge that the applicant was not mentally upset and had deserted the Unit without any reason. However, Rules 22, 23 and 24 ofArmy Rules were not followed while conducting the Summary Court Martial proceedings against the applicant. Not a single prosecution witness was examined in the presence of the applicant. In view of the matter, the entire proceedings of SCM stand vitiated, and, hence, deserves to be set aside and quashed. As a result thereof, the dismissal of the applicant from service also cannot be sustained and thus, deserves to be set aside and quashed. Also, despite numerous letters dated 16/11/2007 and reminders dated 15/1/2008, 10/4/2008, 15/7/2008 and 05/1/2009, a copy of SCM proceedings have not been supplied to the applicant. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has field this OA praying for grant of relief for his reinstatement in service.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Brigade of the Guards of the Indian Army on 31/3/2004. With Course No 56, military training of the applicant commenced wef 03/5/2004 at the Regimental Centre, Kamptee. He absented himself without leave on 26/8/2004 till he rejoined voluntarily on 01/9/2004 for which he was awarded 4 days RI under Army Act Section 39 (a). Again he absented himself without leave twice wef 18/10/2004 till his voluntary rejoining on 01/1/2004 and further wef 04/11/2004 till 08/11/2004 and was again awarded 14 days RI under Army Act Section 39(a), earning two Red Ink Entry Punishments within a short spell of his service. The applicant again absented himself without leave wef 18/12/2004 and accordingly, Apprehension Roll was issued to the concerned civil authorities alongwith a copy to the father of the applicant, Shri Buddhi Singh, vide Regimental Centre letter dated 25/12/2004. The applicant was declared as a Deserter and transferred to supernumerary strength of the Guards Regimental Centre wef 18/12/2004 by a Court of Inquiry held on 22/2/2005. Later on, the applicant surrendered at the Station Headquarters, Bharatpur, on 09/9/2005 and physically reported to the Regimental Centre on 12/9/2005. A Summary of Evidence was recorded and a copy of the same dated 17/9/2005 alongwith Charge sheet dated 20/9/2005 was handed over to the applicant. The applicant was also informedin writing vide letter dated 20/9/2005 about commencement of his Summary Court Martial wef 26/9/2005 for an offence under Army Act Section 39 (a). The applicant was dismissed from service on 26/9/2005 by a Summary Court Martial. With regard to the contention of the applicant that he was neither afforded any opportunity to lead his evidence in defence nor he was provided with any opportunity to cross examine the statements of the witnesses, the Respondents have stated that these are totally incorrect and baseless as the copy of Summary of Evidence and Charge sheet were provided to the applicant and the applicant was given ample time to prepare his defence and also an officer, Lt Col SS Chandel was detailed as a ‘Friend of the Accused’ vide Centre letter dated 20/9/2005, Annexure A/1 & 2. With regard to the contention of the counsel for the applicant that the father of the applicant was informed of the desertion of the applicant only after lodging an FIR by the former, the Respondents have contested that the applicant deserted the unit lines on 18/12/2004 without informing anyone and the Brigade of the Guards issued Apprehension Roll vide its letter dated

25/12/2004 with a copy of the same to the father of the applicant, Annexure IV. Also, the applicant himself had opted Lt Col SS Chandel as the ‘Friend of the Accused’ and he had declined to cross examine the witnesses, nor was he willing to make any statement during the course of his trial and also pleaded ‘Guilty’ to the charge. Accordingly, the OA deserves to be dismissed.

4. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

5. It is evident from the record that the applicant was enrolled in the Brigade of the Guards on 31/3/2004 onhis own volitionwith the stated goal of serving the army and the Nation. As has been observed by this Tribunal in numerous similar cases in the past, where the Recruits at their formative years deviate from the disciplined path and go into delinquency and that the Regimental Training Centre of the Indian Army is the cradle to train a civilian recruited into the Army to become a well trained soldier to defend the Nation at all times irrespective of the terrain and geography where one is posted and the Organisation expects the disciplined behavior since his days in the Training Centre itself to start with, so that the trained soldier could be an asset to the Organisation and the Nation, the Applicant from his formative days itself at the Training Centre deviated from the given path and started violating the discipline of the organization. In that, close on the heels of commencement of his basic training with his Course Serial No 56, the applicant absented himself without leave on 26/8/2004 and rejoined voluntarily on 01/9/2004 and was, therefore, awarded four days of Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 39 (a) of the Army Act. Again, he absented himself without leave on 18/10/2004 and rejoined voluntarily on 01/11/2004 and further deserted the Unit lines without leave on 04/11/2004 and rejoined on 08/11/2004. For his acts of omission he was awarded 14 days RI under Section 39 (a) of the Army Act, thereby earning two Red Ink Entry Punishments within a short span of his joining the Army. The applicant again absented himself without leave wef 18/12/2004, necessitating issuance of an Apprehension Roll to the concerned civil authorities vide letter dated 25/12/2004 with a copy to Shri Buddhi Singh, the father of the applicant. Accordingly the applicant was declared a deserter and transferred to supernumerary strength of the Guards Regimental Centre wef

18/12/2004 by a duly constituted Court of inquiry held on 22/2/2005. In the meantime, the applicant surrendered voluntarily at the Station Headquarters, Bharatpur on 09/9/2005 and reported to the Centre HQ on 12/9/2005. After conducting Summary of Evidence with a copy each of the Summary of Evidence and Charge sheet dated 20/9/2005 having been handed over to the applicant, a Summary Court Martial of the applicant was held on 26/9/2005 for an offence under Section 39

(a) of the Army Act and accordingly, the applicant was dismissed from service on 26/9/2005. It could also be observed from the court martial proceedings that the applicant declined to cross examine the witnesses as also pleaded ‘guilty’ to the charge.

6. From the foregoing narration, it is also circumspect to observe that the Regimental Centre authorities had been amenable to the delinquency of the applicant as has been evident from the fact that he was awarded only minor punishments for his two consecutive offences of ‘Absent without Leave’. It is only when the applicant absented himself without leave for more than nine months at a stretch from 18/12/2004 till 09/9/2005, when he voluntarily reported to the nearest Station Headquarters from where he was directed to report to the Regimental Centre, did the authorities take necessary steps in dismissing the applicant from service for such a serious offence of remaining absent without leave for such a long period during training period itself. Moreover, neither in the OA filed by the applicant nor during the course of hearing, did the counsel for the applicant bring to fore any compelling reason(s) which necessitated the applicant to run away from the Unit and remain absent at his will on so many occasions. Nor during his long absence without leave, the applicant ever tried to contact his peers, seniors at hisPlatoon, which clearly establishes that the applicant had taken the Army service very lightly and had no enthusiasm or interest to complete his basic military training and for his further service to serve as a disciplined soldier of Indian Army. Also, the contention of the applicant in the OA and theoft repeated statement in the Rejoinder to the Reply Statement of the OA filed by the counsel for the applicant that the authorities had not acted in accordance with the laid down norms is in stark contrast, as is evident from the reply statement from the Respondents. The fact remains that the applicant can in no way could exculpate himself from the offence of his long absence of nine months at his formative days at the Regimental Centre, which compelledthe army authorities to take necessary disciplinary action in terms of extant rules, as showing leniency in such cases could send a wrong message to the rank and file which shall not be in the best interest of a fighting army unit, once such a delinquent joins the fighting Army Unit at a later stage. It is also prudent to observe that during this nine months absence without leave, the applicant maintained stoic silence about his illegal absence and at his sweet will reported to Station HQ after having remained absent for such a long period. Moreover, the punishment imposed on a delinquent as a disciplinary action by a competent authority is premised on the reason that the disciplinary authority is the best judge of the situation and the requirements of maintaining discipline within the Army, as discipline in the Army is its hallmark as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its umpteen Judgments. Under the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the action taken by the Respondents in dismissing the applicant from service in terms of rules/regulations on the subject.

7. The case of the Applicant also stands squarely covered by Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI &Ors Vs Ex Sep/Ash Kulbeer Singh, in Civil Appeal No 3095 of 2017, decided on 11/3/2019 as also in the case of UOI &Ors Vs ManojDeswal&Ors, in Civil Appeal No 5015 of 2008, decided on 28/10/2015. In yet another judgment dated 28/7/2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad Vs UOI &Ors, Civil Appeal No 246 of 2017, in which it is held that :- “one must be mindful of the fact that discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of service. Therefore, he did not deserve any leniency by infliction of a punishment lesser than that which has been awarded to him. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed as meritless, while upholding the impugned judgment. The parties are left to bear their own costs”.

8. The relevant extract of Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI &Ors Vs Ex Sep/Ash Kulbeer Singh (supra), reads as follows :-

“….We are clearly of the view that the Armed Forces Tribunal was in error in coming to the conclusion that the punishment which was imposed was harsh. The only basis for the finding was that the respondent had put in twelve years of service. This was all the more a reason why any responsible member of the Armed Force should not have absented from service without permission. The Tribunal clearly misdirected itself in law in coming to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal from service was harsh and disproportionate. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Armed Forces Tribunal dated 21 August 2015. In consequence, OA 483 of 20126 filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs”.

9. In yet another judgment dated 02/9/2019 in Civil Appeal No 1857 of 2018 in the case of Sep SatgurSingh Vs UOI &Ors, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held the view that :- “8) In reply to the show-cause notice, the appellant has not given any explanation of his absence from duty on seven occasions. He has been punished on each occasion for rigorous imprisonment ranging from 2 days to 28 days. A Member of the Armed Forces cannot take his duty lightly and abstain from duty at his will. Since the absence of duty was on several different occasions for which he was imposed punishment of imprisonment, therefore, the order of discharge cannot be said to be unjustified. The Commanding Officer has recorded that the appellant is a habitual offender. Such fact is supported by absence of the appellant from duty on seven occasions.

9) In view thereof, we do not find any error in the order of discharge of the appellant. Appeal is dismissed”.

10. In-fine, we do not find merit in any of the pleas of the applicant and, hence, the OA is dismissed as it was not only a frivolous one, but also floccinaucinihilipilification, to say the least.

OA 30/2012 filed by Army No 15619330 Ex Rect Ajeet Singh

11. No order on costs.

12. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-