Ex Gnr (GD) Lonival Satyendra Ramchandra (Army) vs UOI & Others on 22 August 2025

**ORDER**

**22/08/2025**

1. Under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA (Appeal) praying that the Appeal of the applicant be allowed and the SCM proceedings conducted by the Commanding Officer, 1 Training Regimental, Artillery Training Centre, Hyderabad on 15/10/2016 be quashed and set aside with costs and that the applicant be reinstated in service without any break in service with financial benefits and wages as considered appropriate by the Hon'ble Tribunal. He has also prayed for summoning the complete record of the SCM proceedings for perusal.


2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Artillery as a Gunner (General Duty) on 02/6/2012 and on completion of his successful training, he was attested on 18/6/2013. On return journey from his home town District, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, at Delhi he attended the marriage ceremony of his niece on 24/8/2013. During this ceremony, someone stole his Identity card, Mobile Phone, PAN Card and purse and despite a thorough search, none of these items could be found. He had lodged an FIR at the concerned Police Station on 28/8/2016, but to no avail. With loss of identity card, he being a young soldier got scared of punishment and was late in rejoining from leave and thus rejoined only on 29/9/2013 alongwith his father. He had no intention to either overstay leave or desert the service. The Commanding Officer of the applicant was convinced of the genuineness of his over stayal of leave and based on the humble request of father of the applicant, no action was initiated against the applicant. His father left the Centre on 30/9/2013. The innocent applicant was frightened by his colleagues that he shall be punished for loss of identity card and may be dismissed from service and, hence, in a disturbed state of mind, he absented without leave on 01/10/2013 and went home. After a week, having been counselled by an ex-serviceman, as he was planning to return to his duty, his grandmother suffered from a severe fever and heart attack and thus he over stayed leave till he rejoined on 27/2/2015. As bad luck, he got a message that his grandmother expired on 20/8/2015. He had requested for leave to all officials, but it was not granted. Being very attached to his grandmother, the applicant could not bear this loss and on top of it due to denial of leave to him, he absented himself without leave from 20/8/2015 to 09/9/2015. Father of the applicant visited the Training Centre and explained the circumstances under which his son had absented himself without leave or overstayed leave, which were appreciated by the Commanding Officer and no action was taken against the applicant till 29/7/2016, ie, for nine months. However, on 29/7/2016, orders for recording summary of evidence were issued by Col Amit Gupta, Commanding Officer, 1 Training Regt without holding any hearing of charge as envisaged under Army Rule 22. On 15/10/2016, the applicant was called by Col Arvind Mony, Commanding Officer, 1 Training Regiment and was asked to sign few papers and then told that he was being dismissed from service and asked to leave the Regiment premises immediately. He was just given only one letter dated 15/10/2016 titled Right to Petition. No SCM proceedings were supplied to the applicant despite his request under Army Rule 147 and the applicant was asked to collect the same from the Training Centre. On his earlier requests, he was told that these have been sent to Command HQ and shall be supplied only on their receipt back from the Command HQ after confirmation, Annexure A/5. The applicant after having been despatched home, was not supplied SCM proceedings but to avoid any delay, he promptly submitted post confirmation petition under Army Act 164 (2) to the GOC-in-C, HQ Southern Command on 01/12/2016 narrating circumstances under which the applicant had lost his identity card and had absented himself without leave with no intentions to desert the service. The applicant further submits that the summary of evidence concluded on 02/9/2016, but the then commanding officer having got convinced, possibly did not want to pursue the matter and took a pragmatic view but again due to the ill-luck of the applicant, Col Amit Gupta proceeded on posting and the new commanding officer, Col Arvind Mony, without appreciating the case objectively hastily conducted the SCM proceedings on 15/10/2016 and illegally dismissed the applicant from service violating the laid down statutory provisions. It is surprising that the applicant was supplied charge sheet on 15/10/2016 after the impugned SCM along with the letter regarding right to petition. He had rendered four years, 4 months and 13 days of service and the same should have been considered before awarding punishment of dismissal from service and that the SCM was conducted in gross violation of Army Act and Army Rules and in gross violation of Army Rule 22, a mandatory provision. Further, the accused had requested to allow him to engage a civil counsel or preferably a legally qualified officer but for formality sake, a JCO, Nt Sub Sarvesh Kumar, was appointed as friend of the accused for the SCM. He was of no help to the accused as he neither had any knowledge of the case nor any experience in such matters, nor any interest and was more of a liability than be of any asset as friend of the accused. Moreover, he had been coaxing the accused applicant to plead guilty and not to question the witnesses to annoy and invite wrath of the Court. Thus the Army Rule 22 was flagrantly violated. Therefore, the applicant submits that the applicant has been punished in gross violation of provisions of Army Act and Army Rules and the SCM proceedings deserve to be quashed and set aside being vitiated and arbitrary with firmly established bias.

In support of his arguments, the applicant has placed reliance, amongst others, on the judgment dated 14/1/1983 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagat Ram Vs State of HP, (1983) 2, holding the view that the punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of misconduct – dismissal on trivial charge of negligence which resulted in no loss to the department was held, disproportionate and excessive. Having been aggrieved, the Applicant has filed the OA, praying for relief.

3. Respondents have filed a Reply Statement and have submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 02/6/2012 and underwent training at the Artillery Centre, Hyderabad with effect from 02/6/2012 to 27/7/2013. On completion of his advance training, he was granted 30 days Part of Annual Leave wef 28/7/2013 to 26/8/2013. The applicant failed to rejoin duty on completion of the said leave, until he voluntarily rejoined at the Artillery Centre, Hyderabad, on 29/9/2013, ie, after 34 days of absence. During this duration, the applicant had lost his temporary identity card bearing machine No 11769 issued to him by the Regimental Centre for which he had lodged an FIR at New Delhi. While the applicant was undergoing disciplinary proceedings, he was once again found absent without leave wef 01/10/2013 until he voluntarily rejoined on 27/2/2015, a period of absence of 515 days. Further, while the accused applicant was attached with 3/1 Training Regiment for necessary disciplinary action, he once again absented himself without leave for 21 days wef 20/8/2015 and again voluntarily rejoined at the Centre on 09/9/2015. Thus the applicant had accumulated a total period of absence of 570 days. On investigation of the case in detail, all witnesses and documentary evidence indicated the accused to be guilty for the offences mentioned. Thus SCM proceedings were initiated against the accused applicant on 15/10/2016 and he was dismissed from service. With regard to the allegation of the applicant that he was called by the Commanding Officer, Col Arvind Mony and asked to sign a few papers and was told about his dismissal from service, the Respondents have stated that the SCM proceedings had been carried out as per Army Act Section 116 and attended by (i) IC-53205W Col Arvind Mony, the Court and Interpreter, (ii) IC-52550X Lt Col Sanjeev Sharma, Attending the trial, (iii) JC-276307H Sub Gyaneshwar Pandey, Attending the Trial and (iv) JC-275611A Nb Sub Sarvesh Kumar, Friend of the accused and (v) SS-43417N Maj Arvind Verma,

Independent Witness and (vi) JC-275504Y Sub Tula Ram, as the Independent Witnesses. Further, based on the orders of the commanding officer, Summary of Evidence was recorded and the applicant was handed over a copy of the same vide receipt dated 10/10/2016. Thus the statement of the applicant that copy of Summary of Evidence proceedings recorded as per Army Rule 23 was handed over to the applicant on 15/10/2016, after the completion of SCM proceedings was incorrect. The applicant was given fair chance to cross examine witnesses, which had been declined by the applicant which was also confirmed by all the witnesses. Also, the applicant has offered his statement which has been read to him in the language he understands and duly recorded in the summary of evidence proceedings. Col Arvind Mony, took over the command of 1 Training Regiment, Artillery Centre, Hyderabad, on 01/8/2016 and contrary to the statement of the applicant that the commanding officer did not take a pragmatic view of the case, completion of the SCM proceedings on 15/10/2016, ie, two and a half months after his taking over the command, indicates that the case was studied in depth by the commanding officer and the summary of evidence were recorded under his supervision which was completed on 02/9/2016, one month after his taking over and, hence, the accusation of the applicant that the commanding officer took a hasty decision is incorrect. Further, hearing of charges was carried out by Col Amit Gupta on 29/7/2016 as per Army Rule 22 in the presence of the accused and he ordered 'Evidence to be reduced to writing', and denying the allegation of the applicant that violation of the Army Rules, Respondents have stated that as per Army Rule 111 and Army Rule 129, the 'arraignment' of the accused was carried out and by affirming to Note 2 to the ibid Army Rule, the accused was called upon and each of the four charges were read out separately to the accused to which the accused applicant pleaded 'Guilty', and as per Army Rule 129, charge was explained to the accused applicant by the 'Friend of the Accused' and the same was duly signed by the friend of the accused and also by the accused himself. The court has also explained the provisions of Army Rule 115 (2) in detail to the accused and the same has also been duly endorsed in IAFD-907. During the SCM proceedings, the friend of the accused has been assisting the accused and has advised him on all points and suggested the accused applicant to put questions to the witnesses. Petition dated 01/12/2016 submitted by the accused applicant under Section 164

(2) of the Army Act 1950 has been dismissed by the Competent Authority, ie, GOC-in-C, Southern Command, vide Order dated 14/6/2018. A copy of the Order was sent to the applicant on two addresses held in record vide letter dated 23/8/2018 alongwith a receipt which was to be returned by the applicant after endorsing his signature on it, as a token of having received the Order dated 14/6/2018, but the 'receipt' has not been received by the Respondents till date, Annexure R/1. In view of the factual narration herein, the Respondents have prayed for dismissing the OA (Appeal) filed by the Applicant.

 The image is the national emblem of India, featuring the Lion Capital of Ashoka at the top, flanked by two elephants, and a wheel in the center, all resting on a base with the motto 'Satyameva Jayate'.

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

5. It is evident from the foregoing that the applicant was enrolled in the Army of his own volition on 02/6/2012 with the stated objective of serving the Army and the Nation. He had undergone his basic military training at the Artillery Regimental Centre, Hyderabad wef 02/6/2012 to 27/7/2013. On culmination of his advance training, he was granted 30 days Part of Annual Leave wef 28/7/2013 to 26/8/2013. However, as was mandated, the applicant did not rejoin duty on 26/8/2013 (AN) or early morning the next day, overstayed leave and rejoined at the Centre on 29/9/2013 after 34 days of absence. During this period, his temporary identity card, which is a sacred document for a soldier to prove his Identity everywhere, and was misplaced by him due to his negligence. Apart from the wilful absence of 34 days, the applicant had also remained absent without leave on two more occasions for 515 days wef 01/10/2013 to 27/2/2015 and for 21 days wef 20/8/2015 to 09/9/2015, accumulating a total of 570 days of leave of absence. It has also been seen that on the second occasion of absent without leave, he remained at the Centre for only two days and was again found to be absent without leave wef 01/10/2013 for a period of 515 days as he reported back only on 27/2/2015. Having remained absent for more than 30 days on second absent without leave, he was also declared a deserter on 28/11/2013. His absence of 570 days during his training period itself shows that the applicant had scant regard for the military discipline and ethos and was not willing to continue his service in the Army. In fact, the Applicant had voluntarily joined the Army  A rectangular area at the bottom left of the page has been redacted with a grey fill.

to serve the Nation, but contrary to the Oath administered by him, he has clearly belied the trust reposed upon him to remain disciplined while discharging his military duty. 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 well being of a fighting Army Unit. In the instant case, the applicant wilfully remained Absent Without Leave for about 570 days on three different occasions, making it clear that he had no enthusiasm or inclination of serving the Army. Absence of 570 days from his training by a member of the Armed Forces cannot be condoned. If such is the indisciplined behaviour at the formative years of a soldier at the Training Centre itself, one can only imagine his conduct during Army service. Showing leniency or misplaced sympathy to such soldiers will be at the very peril of the security of the disciplined Army in particular and the Nation in general as the countrymen bestow great faith and trust in the institution of Army as a role model which cannot be diluted at any cost and, thus, no leniency can be bestowed on such individuals. 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 dismissed from service 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. The plea, therefore, of the applicant for his reinstatement in service with consequential benefits has no merit and is rejected.

6. 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".


7. 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".*

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

9. OA (Appeal) is disposed off accordingly. No order on costs.

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

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

cda/-

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)

**ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR**

**S/1**

**OA (A) 04/2018 with MA 607/2018**

**Army No 15193032N Ex Gnr (GD) Lonival Satyendra Ramchandra, S/o Shri Ramchandra, Resident of Village Moisada, Post Moi Purani, Tehsil Bhuhana, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan**

**.... Applicant**

**Versus**


1. 1. UOI, through the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi – 110 011

2. 2. The GOC-in-C, HQ Southern Command, Pune – 1

3. 3. The Commandant, Artillery Centre, Hyderabad

4. 4. The Commanding Officer, 3/1 Training Regiment, Artillery Centre, PIN 900 398, c/o 56 APO

5. 5. The OIC Records, Artillery Records, Nasik Road Camp, Maharashtra *सत्यमेव जयते*

**.... Respondents**

**For Applicant For Respondents**

**: Mr Yogendra Singh Advocate : Mr Pyare Lal Senior Panel Counsel**

**CORAM:**

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


**ORDER

22/08/2025**

After pronouncement of the Order, Counsel for the Applicant has made an oral prayer for grant of Leave to Appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Since we do not find any substantial question of law of general public importance involved in the matter warranting grant of Leave to Appeal, the oral prayer for grant of Leave to Appeal is rejected:


**(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)**


**(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)**

*cda/-*