Ex Rect Hanumat Singh (Army) vs UOI & Others on 12 August 2026

**ORDER**

**12.08.2026**

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for the following reliefs:-

1. (a) Issue directions to quash and set aside the proceedings of Summary Court Martial to include the Sentence of Dismissal from Service on the ground of violation to Rule 115 of the Army Rules, 1954 as also having committed the offence/error as a Minor and well protected under the Child Judicature (Care of the Child) and Protection Act, 2000 to meet the ends of justice and fair play;

2. (b) Issue directions to reinstate the Applicant back to military service and having completed his military training the Applicant be attested and posted out to any Battalion of the Para Regiment to meet the ends of equity, justice and fair play;

3. (c) Pass such order and further orders/directions to the Respondents as may be deemed just and proper by the Hon'ble Armed Forces Tribunal to include adequate compensation, back wages of protection of seniority, service and pay and allowances for the interregnum period between the date of his dismissal and the date of his reinstatement back in military service.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army (Parachute Regiment) on 20.10.2015 and during the training, he was awarded the Best Recruit Award. Having obtained the alleged Adverse Report from the Verification Roll, the Applicant was tried by Summary Court Martial (SCM) during training period itself and was dismissed from Service on 24.01.2017 under Army Act Section 44 "Made at the time of enrolment a willfully false answer to a question set forth in the prescribed form of enrolment (IAFK-1162) which was put to him by the enrolling officer before whom he appeared for the purpose of being enrolled". During the SCM proceedings, the Applicant accepted that, being a juvenile, he was unaware of the law and he did not reveal the fact of his involvement in the cases against him as he wanted to join the Army and serve the Nation and he also pleaded "Guilty". The Applicant has contended that the "Plea of Guilty" should have been converted to "Plea of Not Guilty" in terms of Army Rule 115 by the Commanding Officer conducting the SCM and not having done so, the entire SCM proceedings are liable to be quashed and set aside on technical grounds with consequential benefits thereon. It needs to be appreciated that all the three judgments delivered by the Child Judicature Board and by the Metropolitan Magistrate have acquitted the Applicant in terms of his age under Section 15 of the Child Judicature (Care of the Child) and Protection Act, 2000 with a fine of Rs. 200/-. The Honble Court also made it explicitly clear that the conviction under Section 19 of the Child Judicature (Care of Child and Protection Act, 2000) will not affect or have any disqualification from the future education, employment or any other business and the record of conviction is also removed from the records and therefore, based on the error/offence committed as a Minor, it should not affect his employment as a Recruit in the Army retrospectively wherein the Applicant has put in his best and was also awarded the Best Recruit Award. Having aggrieved by the dismissal of the Applicant from Service, he submitted a Statutory Complaint on 18.03.2017 before the Chief of Army Staff, however, even after a period of more than six months, the same has not been decided. Therefore, the Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed detailed Reply Statement and submitted that the Applicant was enrolled under UHQ Para Regiment Training Centre, Bangalore on 20.10.2015. He began Basic Training on 16.11.2015 and completed on 19.08.2016. Character Verification documents in respect of the Applicant were sent to District Collector, Karauli (Rajasthan) on 18.11.2015 which was received back as "Unfit" from the Office of District Collector and District Magistrate, Karauli (Rajasthan) citing three criminal cases pending against the individual under Section 379 of IPC dt 31.10.2012, 20.12.2012 and 30.09.2013 respectively vide their letter No nyaaya/15/81 dt 06.01.2016. On scrutiny of enrolling documents (AFR-1162, Revised 2008), it was found that the individual has denied all the questions asked in Para 8 of Enrolment Form regarding arrest, criminal charges and of being accused in any criminal case, thus "making at the time of enrolment a willful false answer to a question set forth in the prescribed form of enrolment which was put to him by the enrolling officer before whom he appeared for the purpose of being enrolled". On being interviewed upon receipt of an unfit verification, instead of accepting the fact, the Applicant stated that he was being framed due to family enmity. On verification, it was verified vide letter No nyaaya/16/6703 dt 26.10.2016 that the charges were authentic and the Applicant was under trial. Additionally, during the training period itself, the Applicant absented himself without leave on two occasions, firstly from 02.02.2016 to 09.02.2016 for which he was awarded 14 days pay fine and on the second occasion from 02.10.2016 to 07.10.2016. In view of the above, the Applicant was required to be tried under Army Act Section 44 and 39(a). However, the offence under Army Act Section 44 cannot be dealt with summarily. In the meantime, Applicant completed his Recruit Training on 19.08.2016. Though the Applicant had completed his Basic Military Training on 19.08.2016, his antecedents and character were adversely reported upon by the Competent Authority and pronounced him "Unfit" for the service in Army/Navy and on a detailed enquiry, the Competent Authority did not change his opinion vide letter No nyaay/16/6703 dt 26.10.2016. Since the Applicant's enrolment was deemed to be illegal, he was tried by Summary Court Martial under Section 39(a) and 44 of Army Act, 1950 wherein he was afforded full opportunity to present his defence. Since the nature of the offence pertains to a very direct case of "having given a false answer to the enrolling officer at the time of enrolment" which was proved by documentary evidence, as such, conducting "Summary Court Martial" meets the ends of justice. Therefore, the Applicant was tried by Summary Court Martial under Section 39(a) and 44 of Army Act, 1950 and on conviction sentenced to be dismissed from service on 24.01.2017. In view of the aforesaid averments the Respondents have submitted that the OA lacks merit and deserved to be dismissed with costs.

4. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Applicant conceded that the Applicant made false statements at the time of enrolment to get enrolled in the Army and also pleaded "Guilty" before the Summary Court Martial. However, in support of his claim for re-instatement in service, he placed reliance on **Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dt 17.03.2011 in Civil Appeal No 1430/2007 in the case of Commissioner of Police & Ors Vs Sandeep Kumar** and submitted that the Applicant wanted to join Army and serve the Nation and he did not mention the same in enrolment form out of fear. Moreover, he had committed these offences as a Juvenile and was not awarded any punishment by the Child Judicature Board on 03.10.2016 with clear directions that the child will not be affected due to these matters and he will not be held disqualified from the education, employment or any other business. In view of the aforesaid, the Counsel for the Applicant prayed that he be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

5. After going through the averments of the Learned Counsels and the material available on record, the following facts germane to the case emerge:- (a) The Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 20.10.2015 and completed his Basic Military Training on 19.08.2016.

(b) On verification of the antecedents of the Applicant from the Competent Authority, it was revealed that three criminal cases were pending against the individual under Section 379 IPC dt 31.10.2012, 20.12.2012 and 30.09.2013 respectively.

(c) On scrutiny of enrolment's documents (IAFK-1162, Revised 2008), it was found that the individual has denied all the questions asked in Para 8 of Enrolment Form regarding arrest, criminal charges and of being accused in any criminal case, thus "making at the time of enrolment willful false answers to the questions set forth in the prescribed form of enrolment which was put to him by the enrolling officer before whom he appeared for the purpose of being enrolled". On being interviewed upon receipt of an adverse report on his verification, instead of conceding the fact, the Applicant stated that he was being framed due to family enmity. On further verification, it became clear vide letter No nyaaya/16/6703 dt 26.10.2016 that the charges were authentic and the Applicant was under trial.

(d) The Court of M.M. No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur vide Order dt 18.06.2015 in the case of State Vs Hanumant Singh Gurjar (FIR No 371/2013) declared the Applicant acquitted of the offence of Section 379 IPC based on the settlement made with free-will between the parties. The Applicant was also found Guilty under Section 379 IPC by the Child Judicature Board No 1, Jaipur in Criminal Case Nos 709/2015 and 724/2015 decided on 03.10.2016 and his parents were directed to deposit Rs. 200/- each in above cases under Section 15(1) (a) of Child Judicature (Care of Child) and Protection Act, 2000.

6. The issue to be determined is whether the Applicant is eligible for reinstatement in Service for his dismissal from service for having been involved in criminal cases before enrolment in the Army and not having declared the same in enrolment form at the time of enrolment in the Army.

7. With regard to the offences, Section 44 of Army Act, 1950 reads as under:- ***"False Answers on Enrolment.*** Any person having become subject to this Act who is discovered to have made at the time of enrolment a willfully false answer to any question set forth in the prescribed form of enrolment which has been put to him by the enrolling officer before whom he appears for the purpose of being enrolled, shall, *on conviction by court-martial, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned."*

8. With regard to discharge of personnel undergoing recruit training before taking the Oath, the provisions of Army Rule 13 (3) Item IV are reproduced below :- **"Persons enrolled under the Act but not Attested.**

**IV. All classes of discharge. Commanding Officer or Officer Commanding Recruit Reception Camp, or a Recruiting, Technical Recruiting or Deputy Technical Recruiting Officer.**

*In the case of persons requesting to be discharged before fulfilling the conditions of their enrolment, the Commanding Officer will exercise this power only where he is satisfied as to the desirability of sanctioning the application and the strength of the unit will not thereby unduly reduced. **Recruits who are considered unlikely to become efficient soldiers will be dealt with under this item**".*

9. From the foregoing, it is evident that the Applicant got enrolled in the Army on 20.10.2015 by concealing the vital fact he was involved in three criminal cases before his enrolment in the Army. In the Verification Roll, the Competent Authority clearly declared him "Unfit" for Army/Navy as three criminal cases were pending against him under Section 379 IPC dt 31.10.2012, 20.12.2012 and 30.09.2013 respectively. On scrutiny of enrolling documents (IAFK-1162, Revised 2008), it was found that the individual has denied all the questions asked in Para 8 of Enrolment Form regarding arrest, criminal charges and of being accused in any criminal case, thus "making at the time of enrolment willful false answers to questions set forth in the prescribed form of enrolment which was put to him by the enrolling officer before whom he appeared for the purpose of being enrolled". On verification, it was verified vide letter No nyaaya/16/6703 dt 26.10.2016 that the charges were authentic and the Applicant was under trial. Additionally, during the training period itself, the Applicant absented himself without leave on two occasions, firstly from 02.02.2016 to 09.02.2016 for which he was awarded 14 days pay fine and on the second occasion from 02.10.2016 to 07.10.2016. Since he was declared "Unfit" in the Verification Roll and also absented without leave twice during the training period itself, the Applicant was tried by Summary Court Martial. The Applicant was provided full opportunity to defend his case and during conduct of Summary Court Martial, the Applicant also pleaded "Guilty". Thereafter, the Applicant was dismissed from Service on 24.01.2017 under Section 39(a) of Army Act, 1950 for Absenting without Leave and Section 44 of Army Act, 1950 for making at the time of enrolment a willful false answer to a question set forth in the prescribed form of enrolment which was put to him by the enrolling officer before whom he appeared for the purpose of being enrolled". Further, we are fully cognizant that the discipline, character and conduct is the backbone of our Army and military training is imparted to young personnel who enroll in the Army to mould them to be fit and disciplined soldiers to withstand the rigours of Army service to defend the Nation in all terrains and to face any eventuality. Upon receipt of "Unfit" verification report, he was interviewed to know the facts and despite knowing the fact that he was involved in three criminal cases before enrolment in the Army which were sub-judice before the Child Judicature Court, he had not disclosed this vital fact in the enrolment form, instead of conceding the fact, he tried to mislead his Commanding Officer with a statement that these were framed against him due to family enmity, which establishes that despite completion of his Basic Military Training, he could not become a disciplined soldier, depicting his character and moral turpitude. Therefore, the Applicant was dismissed from Service under Section 39(a) and 44 of Army Act, 1950 for AWL and making false statement at the time of enrolment. It is worth mentioning that the Applicant absented him without leave on the second occasion from 02.10.2016 to 07.10.2016 to appear before the Child Judicature Board No-1, Jaipur on 03.10.2016 in Criminal Cases No 709/2015 and 724/2015, wherein he was not acquitted of the charges under Section 379 IPC, however, a cost of Rs. 200/- each was imposed on the parents of the Applicant under Section 15(1) (a) of Child Judicature (Care of Child) and Protection Act, 2000. However, the Applicant has nowhere mentioned this fact in the OA that he absented himself without leave to appear before the Child Judicature Board No 1, Jaipur on 03.10.2016. As per Section 44 of Army Act, 1950, on conviction by court-martial, an individual is liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned. However, taking a lenient view, the Applicant was just dismissed from service without any term in jail. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Applicant was correctly dismissed from Service by the Summary Court Martial under Sections 39(a) and 44 of Army Act, 1950 and we find no intrinsic infirmity or illegality in dismissing the Applicant from service.

10. The case relied upon by the Applicant in the case of Commissioner of Police & Ors Vs Sandeep Kumar (Supra) is distinguishable as in this case, the Respondent had been acquitted of the charges against him before he applied for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial). However, in the present case, the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 20.10.2015 and at the time of his enrolment, three criminal cases were pending against him which were decided on 03.10.2016 at the time when the Applicant was absent without leave and the Applicant was tried by Summary Court Martial under Army Act Section 39(a) for Absent without Leave and Army Act Section 44 for making false answer at the time of enrolment.

11. In fine we find that this Application is devoid of merit and, hence, is dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

12. No order on costs.


Sd/- XXX

Sd/- XXX

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

सतः न्यायः तदा जयः

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-