Ex Rfn Hanuman Singh (Army) vs UOI & Others on 20 February 2026

O R D E R

20/2/2026

1. By way of this Writ Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the matter of Army Act, 1950, and Rules 1954 framed thereunder, and in the matter of Impugned Summary Court Martial Proceedings held on 16/10/2002 and in the matter of articles 14, 21 & 300A of the Constitution of India and in the matter of Impugned Findings and sentence passed by SCM held on 16/10/2002, the Appellant (hereinafter called the Applicant) had filed SB Civil Second Appeal No 9429/2008 before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, praying for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or directions commanding the Respondents to quash and set aside the proceedings of the SCM held on 16/10/2002, Annexure A/6, and that the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Alternatively, direction to constitute a fresh medical board to ascertain the truth or otherwise of his disease and his dismissal may be converted into discharge so that he can avail benefits of long service of 17 years plus the period of his absence may be regularized in the interest of equity, justice and fairplay. He has further prayed for issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction as is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case beneficial to the petitioner. This apart, the Court may take on record any other order passed by the Respondents subsequent to filing of the writ petition and the same be also quashed and set aside which is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, as also the cost may be awarded throughout.

2. With the inception of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, the Hon’ble High Court, vide Order dated 21/7/2016, transferred the said Writ Petition to this Tribunal to adjudicate uponthe case. The WP was received at this Tribunal on 02/8/2016 and numbered as TA No 03/2016.

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 03/1/1985 and came to be dismissed from service on 16/10/2002 having rendered 17 years, nine months and 13 days of satisfying service. The applicant was granted 15 days earned leave from 05/11/1999 to 19/11/1999 but failed to rejoin duty on 20/11/1999 (AN) on expiry of said leave of absence due to his mental disease and voluntarily reported for duty on 23/8/2002 after an absence of two years nine months and 17 days. A true and correct photocopy of medical certificate dated 06/8/2002 issued by Dr GD Natani, MD (Psy), Department of Neurology, SK Hospital, Sikar, is annexed at Annexure A/1. The preliminary hearing under AR 22 purported to have been held against the applicant at 1130 hours before the Commandant, 22 Assam Rifles on the tentative charge sheet under AA Section 39 (b), and No 2200444A CHM Hoshiyar Singh came to be deposed against the charge. Although the applicant at the very outset on reporting gave the reasons for his prolonged absence by way of medical certificate issued by the Psychiatrist (supra), as a case of “Schizophrenia Paranoid” , a form of major Psychosis, and yet the remarks in Column 5 of the proceedings are made to the effect that the applicant declined to make any statement which is unusual. Finding prima facie case on the deposition of solitary witness, viz, CHM Hoshiyar Singh, the case of the applicant was remanded for recording Summary of Evidence. Since the Commandant was aware of the mental condition of the applicant, he was expected to hold proper enquiry into this aspect of his serious disease. On enquiry, if it was established that the certificate issued by the Psychiatrist is genuine, disciplinary action should not have been taken against the delinquent because there was no intent to remain absent. Hence, a lenient action was warranted to save his family and the dependents from post retirement pecuniary hardships. But the Commandant, 22 Assam Rifles was pre determined to dispense with the service of the applicant anyhow and there was no application of mind, Annexure A/2. Vide Order dated 08/10/2002, Capt Amit Kumar of the same Unit was detailed to record Summary of Evidence under AR 23 and Nb Sub/GD Jagat Singh Samant was detailed as an independent witness during the course of recording of Summary of Evidence. It may be interesting to note that statement of CHM Hoshiyar Singh who deposed before the Commandant, 22 Assam Rifles in proceeding under AR 2w was not recorded in the Summary of Evidence, which is indicative of the fact that the proceedings of SCM were one sided and the applicant being under the control and command of the Commandant, 22 Assam Rifles was made to put his signature on the dotted lines. The trial from the very threshold suffered from the vice of arbitrariness as the applicant was also not explained the import of AR 23 (3) and his signatures were obtained to the effect that the applicant declined to make any statement. Further, the Court of Inquiry held under AA Section 106 and adduced before Officer recording Summary of Evidence by the PW-4 is not admissible since the same has not been recorded on oath in terms of Section 181 and 183 of the AR and same cannot be read in evidence. Since the very document which declared the applicant deemed deserter is inadmissible in evidence the sum effect is that on the basis of Summary of Evidence the accused cannot be convicted, Annexure A/3. As the next step of trial, the Commandant, Col JK Tiwari to be on the safe side issued Special Battalion Routine Order Part I No 48/S/2002, dated 12/10/2002, notifying the date of trial by SCM and issuing administrative, instructions with regard to constitution of the court. Assistant Commandant, Madan Singh Malara, suo moto came to be detailed as a friend of the accused without the knowledge and consent of the applicant in breach of AR 129 which, inter alia, provides that the accused person may have a person of his choice to assist him during the trial whether legal advisor or any other person. No choice from the applicant ever came to be ascertained and well knowing that the said officer was detailed to toe the line of the Commandant. Mr MS Malara, being the independent witness to the proceedings under AR 22 cannot be appointed as defending officer having beenassociated with the preliminary hearing and secondly, at no stage, Mr MS Malara, Assistant Commandant even assisted the accused applicant or tried to make contact with him. This was a sheer empty formality which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. A person who is detailed as independent witness by prosecution agency at the preliminary hearing which is aimed to establish prima facie case against the accused cannot act as a friend of the accused. The defenceof the accused applicant was, therefore, seriously prejudiced particularly when the applicant is a declared case of “Schizophrenia”. This gives an indelible impression that trial of the accused was stage managed and rules were observed more in breach than in the spirit to ensure that no lacunae is left to wriggle out of trial. This is fortified by the fact that the Commandant had already set his mind to get rid of the applicant anyway. The copy of Charge sheet dated 12/10/2002, Summary of Evidence dated 10/10/2002 and 22 Assam Rifles Battalion Special Routine Order Part I order were served to the applicant on 12/10/2002, after pronouncement of sentence. As per AR 34, the aforesaid documents are to be delivered 96 hours prior to commencement of trial in peace area or 24 hours on active service area. This mandatory requirement of law has been conveniently ignored which has grossly prejudiced the defence of the applicant. The applicant wastold to put his signature on the dotted lines on the SCM proceedings in the office of the Adjutant, Major HK Dave, prior to commencement of trial and the sentence was formally pronounced by Commandant when the applicant was marched upto him in his office, and the applicant was informed of his absence of two years, nine months and seven days and he is sentenced, “to be dismissed from service”. The applicant further submits that the applicant and his family being rustic villager and there being no source of income, the familyof the applicant, passing through great financial hardships,could not muster up courage to secure legal assistance. The condition of the applicant got further aggravated for attending to the disease and he was also not in a position to remember and explain the course adopted at trial as such. However, with great persuasion and help from relatives, the applicant mustered the courage to knock onthe doors of the Court. The applicant preferred an Appeal dated 09/7/2006 against the findings and sentence of the Court Martial before the Non Petitioner No 2, for quashing the proceedings of the SCM and re-arranging medical board to ascertain the true or otherwise of the matter, which was rejected vide Order dated 09/4/2007, Annexure A/9. Further, the Post Confirmation Petition submitted by the applicant under Section 164 of Army Act, 1950, has also been rejected vide Impugned Order dated 31/3/2007, received vide Adjutant General’s Branch, Army HQ letter dated 09/4/2007, Annexure A/10. Having been aggrieved, the Applicant has filed this Writ Petition, praying for relief.

4. The counsel for the applicant during the course of final hearing held on 05/2/2026, have placed on record a copy of Order dated 31/3/2015 passed by this Tribunal in TA No 108 of 2009 in the case ofKajor Mal Jat Vs UOI &Ors.

5. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement in response to the Writ Petition. The Respondents have, at first instance, taken preliminary objection to entertain this petition since no cause of action or any material part thereof has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan. Further, the appointing authority, ie, Directorate of Assam Rifles is located at Shillong which also does not fall under the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this sole ground of territorial jurisdiction itself. In support of their arguments, the Respondents have placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ONGC Vs Utpal Kumar Basu, (1994), 4 SCC 711, National Textile Corporation Ltd &Ors Vs M/s HariboxSwalram&Ors, (2004) 9 SCC 786 and Alchemist Limited &Anr Vs State Bank of Sikkim &Ors (2007), 11 SCC 335, wherein it clarified the aspect of importance of cause of action vis-a-vis territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, in a plethora of cases, various High Courts have also rejected the petitions filed before them for want of territorial jurisdiction. The Respondents have also placed reliance on the Order

passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CWP No 20533 of 2005 in the case of Dharamvir Vs UOI &Ors, Keshar Singh Vs UOI &Ors and in WP (C) No 1913/1993 and in WP (C) No 13284 of 2004 in the case of Subhash Kumar Vs UOI &Ors, amongst others.

6. The Respondents have further submitted that the Applicant was enrolled in Assam Rifles on 03/1/1985. In November, 1999, while he was serving with 22 Assam Rifles, deployed in the Field Area under Operation ‘Hifazat’, in a Counter Insurgency Area, he was granted 15 days casual leave wef05/11/1999 to 19/11/1999. However, on termination of said leave, the applicant failed to rejoin duty on due date and voluntarily rejoined only on 23/8/2002 after an illegal absence of two years, nine months and seven days. During the period of his absence from duty, Unit of the applicant, ie, 22 Assam Rifles, had issued an Apprehension Roll vide their letter dated 20/12/1999, annexure R/2 and a Court of Inquiry in terms of Army Act Section 106 was also held and declared the applicant as a ‘Deserter’ from the service and an occurrence to this effect was notified vide 22 Assam Rifles Battalion Routine Order dated 24/1/2000, Annexure R/13. The applicant voluntarily rejoined on 23/8/2002 (AN) and a rejoining casualty was published vide 22 Assam Rifles Battalion Routine Order dated 26/9/2002, Annexure R/14. Thereafter, a Hearing of Charges in accordance with Army Rule 22 read with Army Order 24/94 was carried out on 08/10/2002 by the Commandant, 22 Assam Rifles and ordered for ‘Summary of Evidence to be recorded’, Annexure R/15. After the recording of Summary of Evidence as per procedure, a copy of Charge sheet and Summary of Evidence was duly served to the applicant more than 96 hours, ie, on 12/10/2002, Annexure R16. The Summary Court Martial commenced on 16/10/2002 and AR-224, Assistant Commandant, Madan Singh Malara with written consent of the applicant was detailed as ‘Friend of the accused’. During the trial, the applicant pleaded ‘Guilty’ to the charges. The Court followed due procedure on plea of ‘Guilty’ in accordance with the Army Act and Rules, and the provisions of Army Rule 115 (2) were also duly complied with and the applicant signed at Page ‘B’ of the Summary Court Martial proceedings. The court found the applicant ‘Guilty’ and sentenced him, “to be dismissed from service”, on 16/10/2002. The court before recording its findings, had gone through the past record of the applicant wherein it was mentioned that the applicant had earlier been convicted three times by the competent authority for the same offence under Army Act Section39 (b) for overstayal of leave. A copy of Summary Court Martial proceedings was also supplied to the applicant, in compliance of Army Rule

147. After a period of more than six years from his dismissal from service, the applicant has approached the Hon’ble High court with unjustified delay and latches to quash and set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Summary Court Martial. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the applicant lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed on this ground also. Further, service record of the applicant shows that the applicant has been a habitual offender in the past also, as he was summarily dealt with under Army Act Section 80 on three occasions on 25/4/1995, 23/9/1998 and again on 17/3/1999 and was awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for 14 days and 28 days for overstayal of leave, under Army Act Section 39 (b). Despite showing leniency in successive overstayal of leave for three times, the applicant again remained absent without leave for a period of two years, nine months and seven days without any information to the unit for his alleged illness, while the Unit was deployed in Field Area under Operation ‘Hifazat’, in a Counter Insurgency Area. On rejoining, the applicant failed to justify his illegal absence. The Respondents have further submitted that the applicant was tried by Summary Court Martial for his long absence as per the provisions laid down in the Army Act and Army Rules. Moreover, the applicant had unequivocally pleaded ‘Guilty’ to the charge and the Court after complying with the provision of Army Rule 115 (2) found him guilty accordingly. Thus, Summary Court Martial proceedings were carried out in the presence of the independent witnesses as also a friend of the accused and the allegations levelled against the Commanding Officer are baseless and an afterthought. Further, keeping in view the past soiled service record of the applicant, wherein he had been punished thrice for overstayal of leave, it was amply clear that he had been consistently shirking from his operational responsibility in the Counter Insurgency Area for which he was bound by sacred oath. The sentence of dismissal was, therefore, commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Therefore, this Petition is made with ulterior motive to deceive the Hon’ble High Court. The trial of the applicant has been carried out in a just and fair manner as per the Army Act and Rules and the sentence awarded was commensurate with the offence committed by the applicant. Therefore, no fundamental or legal right of the applicant has been infringed and the applicant has failed to make out a case for issuance of a writ/direction or order by the Hon’ble Court. Hence, the present Writ Petition filed by the applicant is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

7. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. The issue that is to be deliberated upon is whether the plea of the applicant for quashing and setting aside his dismissal from service and grant consequential benefits for his prolonged period of absent without leave – OSL - for two years and nine monthsat a stretch from an Operational Area, merits consideration ?

8. It is evident that the applicant was a Rifleman in the Assam Rifles, enrolled on 03/1/1985. The applicant was enrolled in the Assam Rifles, on his own volition fully abreast that units of Assam Rifles are located in the North East and taken oath to serve the nation in a disciplined manner expected from him. However, contrary to the expectation of the Organisation, the applicant turned out to be an indisciplined one and a serial offender. In that, he was punished on three occasions for the offence of absent without leave on 25/4/1995, 23/9/1998 and on 17/3/1999 and was awarded Rigorous Imprisonment of 14 days and 28 days. Emboldened by the leniency shown to him by the authorities for his Absent Without Leave in the past on three occasions, the applicant forget his duty towards his Unit and the Nation started serving at will, considering the service as his fiefdom’ and remained Absent without Leave for a protracted period of two years two years, nine months and seven days at a stretch by not rejoining his Unit on culmination of leave on 20/11/1999for a 15 days’ Casual Leave granted to him for the period from 05/11/1999 to 19/11/1999, while his Unit was deployed in Field under Operation ‘Hifazat’, in a Counter Insurgency Area, necessitating the unit authorities to declare him as a Deserter wef20/11/1999. He rejoined his Unit at his sweet will on 23/8/2002. Contrary to the statement made in the Writ Petition that the applicant was under treatment with a civilian doctor for his purported disease, “Schizophrenia Paranoid Type”, record shows that neither the applicant himself nor his wife nor any of his relatives ever tried to contact the Unit authorities, explaining his medical condition, which precluded him in reporting back to the Unit on culmination of his casual leave granted to him. As per Annexure A/1, Certificate dated06/8/2002, issued by Dr GD Nathani, SK Hospital, Sikar, Rajasthan, stating that the applicant was under psychiatric treatment, which cannot be taken at face value. We fail to understand what prevented the applicant or if at all he was incapable, his family members, from approaching the Unit authorities explaining the situation either through a letter or through telephonic conversation or even taking the applicant to the Unit location/Assam Rifles Centre, Shillong, for his proper treatment at the service hospital there, free of cost. Record shows that, as was mandated, the Apprehension Roll dated 20/12/1999, (Annexure R/12)addressed to the Superintendent of Police, District Sikar, Rajasthan, with a copy to SmtBimla, wife of the applicant at her home address of the applicant, was of no avail in so far as taking cognizance of the status of the applicant as a deserter from the Service by the civil administration in apprehending or replying to the Unit authorities about their inability in tracing the applicant, at a time when the applicant was undergoing treatment for his so-called psychiatric illness. Therefore, the certificate purported to have been issued by the Doctor is only a fig leaf to cover up his protracted absent without leave and cannot be vouchsafed for his long absence. All this shows that his story of mental illness was a concocted one which was made as an afterthought to obtain sympathy from the authorities. However, strangely enough, he did not mention this at his trial. Moreover, at the time of trial also, the applicant did not make any statement, nor cross examined any of the witnesses who deposed before the SCM/Court of Inquiry and did not produce any witness from his side. Further, he pleaded ‘Guilty’ to the charges framed against him.

9. Under the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the action initiated by the Assam Rifles Authorities in dismissing the Applicant from service after following due process, warranting our interference.

10. 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 was held :- “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”.

11. 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 2016 filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs”.

12. 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”.

13. The Order dated 31/3/2015 passed by this Tribunal in TA No 108 of 2009 in the case of Kajor Mal Jat Vs UOI &Ors, is distinctive in that the overstayal of 279 days for which he was dismissed from service was only converted into discharge from service by this Tribunal, while conviction passed by the Summary Court Martial vide Order dated 20/3/2003 for overstayal of 279 days was maintained. Whereas, in the case of the applicant herein, he willfully remainedin Overstayal of Leave for a protracted period of two years, nine months and seven days, showing scant regard to the discipline and ethos of the service for which he got enrolled voluntarily.

14. In-fine, we do not find merit in any of the pleas of the applicant and hence, this TA is dismissed.

15. No order on costs.

16. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-