Ex Rect Rajendra Singh Parmar (Army) vs UOI & Others on 1 September 2025

1. 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 11/3/2016 being arbitrary and illegal and that the Respondents may be directed to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits. He has also prayed that suitable compensation by way of costs may also be paid to the applicant for the mental agony suffered by him and for the litigation. Any other relief which is deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present matter may also be granted in favour of the applicant.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 16/9/2014 as a Sepoy in medical category SHAPE-1 and no disease or disability was noted in his recruitment papers by the recruiting medical officer. The applicant was drafted to Rajput Regimental Centre, Fatehgarh and he 

underwent training which was successfully completed by him. However, at the time of his passing out he could not perform well in the swimming test and developed fear and due to lack of proper counselling, the applicant overstayed the leave and also remained absent without leave and, thus, the applicant was relegated and he completed the entire training and was about to be passed out of the training. However, while holding the passing out parade the Respondents have prepared the documents of the applicant for discharge from Army and obtained his signatures contrary to his will and after holding the medical board, the applicant was discharged from service in medical category SHAPE-I under Rule 13 (3) Item III (iv), Annexure A/2. He had rendered one year, five months and 24 days of service at the time of discharge and his discharge was illegal contrary to the rules on compassionate grounds after issuing an illegal show cause notice dated 23/2/2016, a copy of which was not provided to the applicant and his reply to the show cause dated 26/2/2016 was also obtained under duress. The applicant further submits that the applicant was discharged from service under Rule 13 (3) III (iv) which is exclusively related to "own request cases", but the applicant neither applied for discharge nor gave his unwillingness to serve and hence, the applicant cannot be discharged on own request under this clause. Under the circumstances, the applicant prays for quashing and setting aside impugned discharge order and prays for his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

3. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement and have submitted that the applicant, Ex Recruit Rajendra Singh Parmar, was enrolled in the Army on 16/9/2014 from the Army Recruiting Office, Jaipur. The applicant reported for his military training to Rajput Regimental Centre. The applicant graduated to Advance Military Training after completing his Basic Military Training of 19 weeks. While undergoing Advance Military Training the applicant absented himself without leave frequently for varying periods, totalling 146 days altogether between the period 29/6/2015 to 16/1/2016. His absence during the Advance Military Training shows his lackadaisical approach towards military training. As the applicant absented himself without leave for 50 consecutive days, from 28/11/2015 to 16/1/2016 and remained absent for a total period of 146 days during the training period, the case of the applicant was considered on its merit to be discharged from service in terms of IHQ of MoD (Army) letter No A/20314/MT3 dated 28/2/1986, which stipulates that a recruit who has been absent without leave for a period of 30 consecutive days during basic military training period will not be allowed to rejoin his training and will be discharged from service after necessary disciplinary action. However, once the technical (advance) training of a recruit has commenced, the discretion to discharge a recruit for such absence will be left to the Commandant of the Centre, who may retain or discharge him considering the case on its merits. In support of their arguments, the Respondents have placed reliance on the landmark judgment dated 28/10/2015 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No 5015/2008 in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Manoj Deswal & Ors. Respondents have further clarified that the applicant was discharged from service exclusively for his absence for a duration of 50 consecutive days from 28/11/2015 to 16/1/2016 (total cumulative period 146 days) during his Advance Military Training in terms of IHQ of MoD (Army) letter dated 28/2/1986 and the clause under the applicant was discharged which has been mentioned as, "13 (3) (iv)" which was erroneous due to a clerical error and was an oversight and the Clause under which the applicant was discharged from service was under the Rule 13 (3) IV. Under the circumstances, the Respondents have prayed for dismissing the OA.

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

5. The applicant, Recruit Rajendra Singh Parmar, was enrolled in the Army on 16/9/2014 on his own volition with the stated objective of serving the motherland. As is mandated and as a prelude to become a mentally and physically fit soldier, uninterrupted basic military training is being imparted to the recruits to withstand the rigours of Army service. After completion of his basic military training, the applicant, while undergoing Advance Military Training, which was essential for the Trade allotted to the applicant, he wilfully and brazenly absented himself without leave on seven occasions, ranging from 7 to 26 days. In one such instance, the applicant remained absent without leave for fifty days at a stretch wef 28/11/2015 to 16/1/2016. Thus, the total cumulative absence of the applicant comes to a staggering 146 days, that too, during his crucial formative training period. Such brazen absence during the training period of a recruit clearly speaks of his lackadaisical approach towards Army ethics and discipline and such a soldier cannot be trustworthy and faithful to the organisation to serve the Army as a disciplined soldier to take on the challenges when called upon to do so. This Tribunal is fully cognizant of the fact that the object of appropriate punishment to military personnel is not merely to inflict punishment, but also to ensure that undue leniency does not set a bad precedent for others to emulate, and jeopardise the overall discipline and operational wellbeing of a fighting Army Unit. In the instant case, the applicant wilfully and brazenly remained Absent Without Leave for 146 days during his initial days while undergoing training at the Regimental Centre, making it clear that he had no enthusiasm or inclination of serving the Army and he turned out to be a habitual offender, having scant regard for the discipline to be maintained. Our countrymen bestow great faith and trust in the institution of Army as a role model which cannot be diluted at any cost and, hence, no leniency can be bestowed on such individuals who remain indisciplined. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the Respondents have carried out the action against the applicant in adherence with the procedure laid down and he was rightly discharged from service wef 11/3/2016 in terms of prevailing rules and policies and under the circumstances, we find no illegality or infirmity in the action taken by the Respondents in dismissing the applicant warranting our interference. He had rendered one year, 5 months and 24 days service only. The plea, therefore, of the applicant for his reinstatement in service with consequential benefits has no merit and is rejected.

6. As regards contention of the Counsel for the Applicant during the course of final hearing, that the Clause "13 (3) III (iv)" under which the applicant was discharged from service was wrong as it relates to discharge at own request by an individual and the applicant neither applied for discharge from service nor gave his consent to be discharged from service. The Respondents had clarified in their Reply Statement and oral submissions that the Clause under which the applicant was discharged from service was actually under Rule 13 (3) (IV) and the clause, "Rule 13 (3) III (iv)" mentioned was erroneous and inadvertent due to a clerical error.


7. Further, the dismissed Armed Forces Personnel are not entitled to any pensionary benefits in terms of Para 113 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I, reproduced at Regulation 41 of the Pension Regulations for the Army 2008, which reads as follows :- **"Individual Dismissed/Removed/Discharged under the Army Act.**

41. (a) An individual who is dismissed under the provisions of Army Act, 1950 or removed under the Rules made thereunder as a measure of penalty, will be ineligible for pension or gratuity in respect of all previous service".

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, the relevant extract of this Judgment reads as follows :- ".....From the record, it is evident that the respondent did not make any effort to apply for extension of his leave. Absence of 302 days from his duty by a member of the Armed Force could not be condoned. 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 2012 filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs".

Further, 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, 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".


9. The case of the applicant is also covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Manoj Deswal & Ors, in Civil Appeal No 5015 of 2008, decided on 28/10/2015.

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

11. OA is disposed off accordingly. No order on costs.

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


(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

cda/-


सत्यमेव जयते


(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)


यतो न्यायः ततो जयः