Ex Rect Ramcharan Choudhary (Army) vs UOI & Others on 11 March 2026

O R D E R

11.03.2026

1. Under section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA with the following prayers :- (a) That the application of the applicant be allowed and the Impugned Discharge Certificate, Annexure A/2, be quashed and set aside and the applicant be reinstated in service alongwith all consequential benefits; (b) The applicant be brought before a medical board and if found fit to be retained in service or be invalided out as per recommendations of the medical board;

(c) He be granted disability pension if invalided out of service based on recommendations of invaliding medical board; (d) Be paid arrears of consequential benefits of disability pension from the date of his invaliding out of service; (e) Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Tribunal thinks just and proper in the matter be also granted to the applicant and (f) As an interim relief, he has prayed that the Respondents be directed to place on record medical record as well as the court of inquiry he having been punished by the authorities.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that he was enrolled in the Army on 30/7/2020 through the Recruiting Office, Alwar, Rajasthan and after completing all the formalities, he was despatched to the Training Centre, Jat Regiment on 31/7/2020. On 30/10/2020, while he was on night duty at the Museum, Jat Regiment, Havildar Rajiv who was the Guard Commander started touching his bottom inappropriately and when told not to indulge in such actions with him, he started scolding and threatened him of dire consequences. The applicant reported this matter to the Commanding Officer, but Hav Rajiv totally declined and instead of taking action against him the applicant was awarded 28 days of Rigorous Imprisonment for making false allegation against the superior. Such gross injustice led to his mental disorientation and in a fit of lunacy, he left the Training Centre on 29/12/2020 and came home. He was visibly disoriented and he was taken to the Doctor, (DM) Neuropsychiatry. He was found to be aggressive, talking irrelevant and wandering tendencies as recorded by Dr Narendra Kumar, on 31/12/2020. He was referred for various tests which were carried out at a Diagnostic Centre, Alwar and was taken by his father again on 10/2/2021 and thus, it is evident that his father never consented for his voluntary discharge which is a fabricated document in view of documentary evidence of variation in dates while his father was at Alwar. The applicant left the Training Centre, twice in a fit of lunacy for whatever reason, but when apprised of his neuro treatment by civil doctor it was the duty of Army authorities to have the individual at least medically examined, leave apart treatment before arbitrarily discharging him from service. Such discharge without medical examination is ultra vires and illegal and deserve to be quashed by the Hon’ble Tribunal. The applicant was medically fit at the time of his enrolment and had no signs of any abnormality. He had undergone rigorous recruit training and had never shown any signs of symptoms of any neuro disorder. It was due to stress and strain of training and allied tensions besides inappropriate action of guard commander followed by punishment, resulting in psychotic disorder. Thus, the applicant was a disabled person, who had to be brought before an invaliding medical board before his discharge from service even if it was voluntary, which was denied to him possibly on apprehension of revealing action of Hav Rajiv and subsequent illegal punishment, thus putting a lid over criminal acts of Hav Rajiv against the applicant by the authorities. The applicant further submitted that in terms of Regulation 135 (e), which stipulates that when a recruit breaks down while undergoing training or is found to be suffering from a disability, likely to prevent him becoming an efficient soldier, he will be medically examined, and if found unfit, he would be discharged under Army Rule 13 (3) item IV. Thus, even on voluntary discharge the commanding officer was obliged to bring the applicant before a medical board. Not bringing the applicant before a medical board and obtaining a certificate for discharge from father of the applicant are unusual steps and smack of foulplay ab initio. Authorities have enough powers under the Army Act/Rules to discharge a person or initiate action against the defaulting individual and terminate his service adopting due legal process and not the one adopted in this case. Obviously, the authorities have acted in an arbitrary and prejudicial manner contrary to rules and regulations. The applicant has been discharged from service in contravention to existing legal provisions and as such he needs to be reinstated in service and brought before a medical board and action taken as per recommendations of the Medical Board. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA praying for relief.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 02/8/2020 and was reported to the Jat Regimental Centre for his military training, which commenced on 07/9/2020 as part of Batch Number 09/2020 of Mooltan Company, Training Battalion. On 31/10/2020, the applicant was found to be in possession of a mobile phone, by the Musuem Guard Commander in violation of the existing orders. Subsequently, he was awarded 28 days RI with effect from 11/11/2020 to 08/12/2020 by the Battalion Commander and the occurrence has been published vide Part II order dated 23/1/2021. Consequent to this punishment, the applicant missed training for 28 days’ and was relegated for the first time from the Batch Number 09/2020 to the next Batch, ie, Batch Number 01/2021 of the same Company in accordance with Para 15 (b) of Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on Relegation of Recruits issued vide IHQ of MoD (Army) letter dated 28/3/2018 on the subject. Thereafter, the applicant absented himself without leave from the Regimental Centre on 29/12/2020 and voluntarily rejoined the Centre on 04/1/2021, a total of seven days of absence without leave, thereby missing his training sessions. The Applicant was then put under quarantine for 10 days at the Centre Covid-19 quarantine facility. The applicant again absented himself without leave from the Quarantine Centre facility on 15/1/2021 and voluntarily rejoined on 10/2/2021, after an absence of 27 days. The quarantine period of ten days wef 11/2/2021 to 20/2/2021 which was not counted as absence being administrative/organizational requirement. As the applicant absented himself without leave for 34 days he was again relegated for the second time from Batch No 01/2021 to the next suitable batch in the same company in accordance with the extant policy and Mooltan Company Commander motivated the applicant to continue his basic military training. On 26/2/2021, the applicant attempted absence without leave by trying to proceed from the Regimental Centre but was spotted by a Sentry and was brought back to his company. Thereafter, he was interviewed by the Company Commander and Officiating Training Battalion Commander too where the applicant confided that he does not want to serve in the Army. All efforts were made to motivate him to serve. The applicant applied for discharge from service voluntarily and gave a written application on 26/2/2021 and expressed his inability to continue his military training which is evident form the application. In this regard, both the applicant and his father, Shri Shiv Charan Chouhdary, had submitted their Affidavit dated 26/2/2021, Annexure R/1 & 2. Despite best efforts by the company commander and the counselling given by the Batch NCO and JCO to motivate and persuade the applicant to continue his military training, the applicant was not willing to serve further and based on the application and affidavits submitted by both the applicant and his father, the applicant was discharged from service under Rule 13 (3) item IV of Army Rules at his own request wef 01/3/2021 and the occurrence in this regard was published vide Regimental Centre Part II order No 3/0424/0001/2021 dated 18/3/2021. With regard to the allegation made against Hav Rajeev Kumar of 17 JAT by the applicant, the Respondents have stated that it was totally false and baseless and since (Hav Rajeev) had reported about the applicant being in possession of mobile phone which is contrary to the existing orders, the applicant was not charged for making false allegations against his superior officer, but was charged under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950. The incident was reported to the notice of Training Battalion Commander at the time of incident and was investigated thoroughly and it was concluded that Hav Rajeev Kumar caught the applicant using mobile phone, while on duty during training. On fear of getting caught and the likelihood of getting punished, he levelled allegations of inappropriate behavior by the said NCO, which were found to be false and baseless. Neither the applicant nor his father or any other family member had brought to the notice of the authorities at JAT Regimental Centre about the applicant’s disorientation and treatment administered to him at Alwar when he was brought back to the Regimental Centre for rejoining training on 04/1/2021, or any time before 01/3/2021 either in writing or verbally. Nor had he or his family members requested for a detailed examination and treatment at the Military Hospital for the purported treatment undergone by the applicant by a civil

doctor at his native place. Further, cancellation of desertion roll is a normal procedure when an individual under Army Act reports back for duty/training or is apprehended on being absent without leave, to inform the civil administration/police authorities of the same. The handwritten application dated 26/2/2021 submitted by the applicant for his premature discharge from army service was not signed by the father of the applicant, but the applicant himself. Father of the applicant was informed both on telephone and in person about the applicant’s unwillingness to serve in the Army and the father was also counselled for not putting undue pressure on his son to undergo training and support his son’s decision of working in civil, as he had absented himself without leave from the Regimental Centre on two occasions earlier and attempted again on 26/2/2021 and when he absented himself without leave on 15/1/2021 – second time- he did not go to his home town but had moved to Shahjahanpur, a likely place of his friend, as he was scared of his father. Having narrated the sequence of events, the Respondents have submitted that the applicant had proceeded on premature discharge from service at his own request and was discharged from service in SHAPE-1 and that the applicant is not entitled to get any relief from the army and the OA filed by the applicant deserve to be dismissed being devoid of merit.

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 JAT Regiment on his own volition on 02/8/2020 with the stated goal of serving the Army and the Nation. The Regimental Training Centre of the Indian Army is the cradle to train a civilian recruited into the Army to become a well trained and efficient soldier to defend the Nation at all times irrespective of the terrain and geography where one is posted and the Organisation expect him to be a disciplined soldier from the Training Centre itself to start with. However, the applicant from his formative days itself at the Training Centre deviated from the given path and started violating the discipline of the organization. During the training period itself, he absented himself without leave on two occasions, resulting in his relegation to the junior batch. It is also prudent to observe that the applicant had to be relegated to his junior batch twice due to his absence without leave an act of gross indiscipline. Vide application dated 26/2/2021 (Annexure R/1) submitted by the applicant duly signed by him the applicant had clearly stated that he was not interested in training at all and wants to leave the Army, which shows that the applicant was least interested in the Army career and was eager to get discharged from service. Further, perusal of Annexure R/1 & R/2 placed on record reveals that the applicant and his father, Shri Shiv Charan Choudhary, had separately submitted their Affidavits executed on Non Judicial Stamp Paper duly attested by the Notary, Bareilly. While the applicant in his affidavit clearly stated that he wants to leave the Army and is not interested to serve any more and that he was leaving the army on his own volition and not under any duress. It was also stated therein that he would not stake any claim in future. The father of the applicant had also stated that his son is leaving the Army on his own accord for which he had no objection and it was being done without any pressure or duress from any quarter and he supports the intention of his son leaving the army service midway.

6. In view of the foregoing and since the discharge of the applicant from army service during his training period itself was his own making duly supported by his father as has been explicitly stated in the personal application and affidavits submitted by the applicant and the father of the applicant, this OA is an after thought to gain pecuniary benefits on flimsy and fabricated grounds and is definitely a vexatious litigation. We, therefore, find no infirmity or illegality in the action taken

by the Respondents in discharging the applicant from Army service during his training period. The prayers of the applicant for his reinstate in service and grant of pensionary benefits have no merit and is rejected.

7. The OA is dismissed accordingly. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-