Ex Rect Jitendra vs UOI & Others on 24 March 2026

1. 1. UOI, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt of India, New Delhi

2. 2. The PCDA (P), Prayagraj, UP - 211 014

3. 3. The OIC Records, Punjab Regt Centre, Ramgarh Cantt, PIN 900 409, c/o 56 APO

4. 4. Commanding Officer, No 1 Training Battalion, Bengal Engineer Group & Centre, Roorkee

.... Respondents

**For Applicant**

**: Mr. Rajesh Gadwal, Advocate**

**For Respondents**

**: Mr. Pyare Lal, Senior Panel Counsel**

**CORAM:**

**HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J)**

**HON'BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)**


**MA No 442/2024**

1. 1. The applicant has filed this MA praying for condonation of delay of one year, eight months and 15 days involved in filing the OA. Delay is condoned.

**OA 314/2024**

1. 2. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for quashing and setting aside the Impugned Order dated 02/8/2022, Annexure A/1, and that the Respondents be directed to reinstate the Applicant in service from the date of his discharge, ie, wef 02/8/2022 with all consequential benefits. He has also prayed for passing any other appropriate order or directions which are deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal in his favour. As an interim prayer, he has prayed that looking into the facts and circumstances of the case that the applicant is 37 years of age and is out of service for a long period and his family is suffering irreparably, as such it is in the interest of justice that during the pendency of the Original Application he may be reinstated in service on provisional basis, subject to final disposal of the OA.

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army as a Soldier Oik/SKT on the basis of merit in CEE held on 30/7/2017 and was enlisted wef 25/9/2017. The applicant got injured during his basic training at the Regimental Centre at Bengal Engineer Group and Centre, Roorkee, due to which the applicant was admitted in the medical college and his training was put on hold. He was granted two days annual leave wef 05/7/2022 to 06/7/2022 which was further extended till 08/7/2022. When he was to return to his duties after completion of leave, some untoward incident happened in the family and under compelling family circumstances, he failed to rejoin his service in time and reported for duty after a delay of 16 days. But the concerned official did not allow him to join the duty. The applicant contacted the higher authorities and submitted a representation mentioning the reasons of his overstayal and finally the army authorities got the applicant join the duty. After that, the army authorities conducted a summary trial and the applicant was punished with five days Rigorous Imprisonment by the summary trial court, but the applicant was suddenly discharged from service on 02/8/2022 on the grounds that the applicant was on overstayal of leave, which was unconstitutional and the applicant was discharged from service without jurisdiction and he was given two punishments for the same offence. The applicant has submitted numerous representations to the concerned authorities for his reinstatement in service but the Respondents paid no heed to his requests, which is not only illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable but unconstitutional. The applicant had field SB Civil Writ Petition No 14854/2024 before the Hon'ble High Court at Jaipur Bench, which was withdrawn when the counsel for the applicant suggested that the Armed Forces Tribunal has the jurisdiction over army matters. Hence, the said petition has been withdrawn from the Hon'ble High Court. In support of his arguments for grant of relief, the applicant has placed reliance on the judgements passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ex Commodore Sukhjinder Singh Vs UOI & Ors, Ex Cdr Satyavir Singh Payal Vs UOI and in the case of S Muthu Kumaran Vs UOI & ors, in Civil Appeal No 352 of 2017 as also the judgments passed by the coordinate Benches of the Armed Forces Tribunal in Ex Sgt RK Sutar Vs UOI & ors, amongst others. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA praying for relief.

4. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement. They have submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 25/12/2017 through Punjab Regimental Centre, Ramgarh and he reported to HQ BEG & Centre, Roorkee, on 26/9/2017. The applicant sustained injury and was admitted to military hospital on 27/11/2019. He was discharged from the hospital on 28/11/2019 with 28 days sick leave wef 20/11/2019 to 26/12/2019 from the medical authority. The applicant did not complete his training and he absented himself without leave from the unit lines on 18/12/2020 at 2000 hrs to 13/5/2022 for a total period of 511 days. He rejoined voluntarily on 13/5/2022 at 1000 hours. The applicant was awarded 28 days RI and 14 days Pay Fine by the Officiating Commanding Officer, No 1 Training Battalion on 30/5/2022 under Section 39 A of Army Act i.e. absenting himself without leave. Further, the applicant requested for two days leave to appear in an examination wef 05/7/2022 to 06/7/2022, but he failed to report and requested for extension of leave for further two days, which was granted on the ground of his examination. However, the applicant again did not report on 09/7/2022 on expiry of the leave and remained on overstayal of leave wef 09/7/2022. He voluntarily rejoined on 24/7/2022 at 2030 hours. Since the applicant was on OSL for 16 days, he was granted five days RI by the Commanding Officer, No 1 Training Battalion on 28/7/2022 under Section 39 (b) of Army Act 1950. Since the applicant missed his training session for a total period of 527 days which included his military training, basic training, physical test, trade training and trade test, the applicant was discharged from service wef 02/8/2022 under Rule 13 (3) IV of Army Rules 1954 based on the policy formulated by Army Training Command and circulated vide its letter dated 01/2/2022, Annexure R/1. Further, the action against the applicant was initiated because of his long absence of 511 days of being absent without leave and 16 days over stayal of leave, making his total absence from the training for 527 days. In terms of policy issued by the Army Training Command vide letter dated 01/2/2022, any individual who absents himself for more than 21 days during his basic military training is liable for discharge from service. In view of the factual position narrated herein, the Respondents have prayed for dismissing the OA with costs.

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

6. It is evident from the record that the applicant was enrolled in the Bengal Engineer Regiment at his own volition on 25/12/2017 with the stated goal of serving the army and the Nation. It is also on record that the applicant got enrolled in the Army through Punjab Regimental Centre, Ramgarh, which was possible for the wards of service/ex-servicemen. 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. During the initial training period and before conclusion of his basic military training, he absented himself without leave form the Unit lines for a 511 days at a stretch for the period 18/12/2020 at 2000 hours till 13/5/2022. For this absence, the officiating Commanding Officer awarded 28 days RI and 14 days Pay fine on 30/5/2022 under Section 39(a) of the Army Act, 1950. Prior to this willful absence without leave by the applicant, close on the heels of commencement of the basic training, the applicant sustained injury and was admitted to the Military Hospital on 27/11/2019 and was discharged from there on 28/11/2019 and was granted 28 days Sick Leave wef 29/11/2019 to 26/12/2019 by the medical authorities. Rather than mending his ways and complete the basic military training, the applicant had shown no enthusiasm in his further training and Army service, as the applicant was let off by the army authorities leniently with only 28 days RI for his long absence of 511 days.

Further, based on his request, he was granted two days CL wef 05/7/2022 to 06/7/2022 ostensibly to appear for an examination, which was further extended for another two days. However, the applicant did not rejoin duty on 09/7/2022 on completion of his extended casual leave. The applicant rejoined duty voluntarily on 24/7/2022 at 2030 hours, ie, after 16 days overstayal of leave, for which he was again awarded five days RI by the Commanding Officer, No 1 Training Battalion, on 28/7/2022 under Army Act Section 39 (b). The cumulative absence of the applicant during his military training period thus comes to a staggering 527 days and the applicant was dismissed from service wef 02/8/2022 under the extant policy of Army Training Command/Army HQ, which has been formulated and circulated vide letter dated 01/2/2022.


मन्त्रिमव जयनं

7. From the foregoing narration, it is also prudent to observe that the Regimental Centre authorities had been more than accommodative with the applicant for his 511 days of absence without leave between December 2020 and May 2022 as the applicant was given a light punishment with only 28 days RI in military custody for his malfeasance in his formative days. When the act of the applicant in absenting himself without leave at his sweet will become a routine, the authorities had to take necessary steps to dismiss the applicant from service as per extant policy on the subject. Therefore, we find no infirmity or illegality in the action taken by the Respondents in dismissing the applicant from service. In fact, the Respondents could have dismissed the applicant from service on rejoining from 511 days of absence without leave on 13/5/2022, but he was allowed to continue in his military training by awarding only 28 days RI. However, the fact remains that successful completion of basic military training and disciplined behavior are essential components expected from the members of the armed forces to ensure that the fighting army units work cohesively and efficiently to achieve the stated goal. It is also evident from the highly indisciplined, errant and erratic behavior shown by the applicant ever since his enrolment that he had no enthusiasm to complete his military training and be a disciplined soldier.

8. 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 Manoj Deswal & 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".*

9. 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".*

10. In yet another judgment dated 02/9/2019 in Civil Appeal No 1857 of 2018 in the case of Sep Satgur Singh 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".*

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


सत्यमेव जयते

12. No order on costs.

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

Sd/- XXX

Sd/- XXX

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)

cda/-