Ex Ptr Sumer Singh vs UOI & Others on 25 July 2025

**ORDER**

**25.07.2025**

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA, praying for directing the Respondents to quash and set aside his discharge from service and grant of Service Pension along with interest on arrears.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 13.02.1974 and after rendering only 7 years and 259 days of service, he was discharged from Service on 17.11.1981 on the grounds that he had earned four red ink entries. In support of his claim, Learned Counsel for the Applicant placed reliance on Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ***Veerendra Kumar Dubey Vs COAS, JT 2015 (9) SC 394*** and ***Narain Singh Vs UOI & Ors in Civil Appeal Nos 7452-7453 of 2019 decided on 20.09.2019*** and submitted that mere infliction of four red ink entries to a person has no statutory sanction to discharge him from service and the length of service rendered by a person, postings at hard stations and difficult living conditions should also be considered before discharging a person from service. The Applicant replied to the Show Cause Notice issued to the Applicant but without giving the Applicant the opportunity of hearing or the Reply, he was arbitrarily discharged from Service. The Applicant submits that the due process for discharge of the Applicant from Service was not followed by the Respondents and, hence, he should be reinstated in Service or in the alternative, he should be granted Service Pension. The Applicant issued Legal Notice to reinstate him in service or in alternative grant him Service Pension, but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and while not disputing basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted that service documents of the Applicant have been destroyed by burning after expiry of mandatory retention period of 25 years. However, as per Long Roll available, the Applicant was awarded four red ink entry punishments, ie., thrice under Section 39 (b) of Army Act, 1950, ie., Overstaying Leave and once under Section 63 of Army Act, 1950 for committing a theft, ie., Wrist Watch from the civilian. Under the provisions of Army Headquarters letter No A/13210/AG/PS-2(c) dt 23.08.1965 (applicable in this case) and later amended/ superseded vide letter of even No dt 28.12.1988, a person may be discharged from Service as an undesirable soldier. Therefore, the Applicant was rightly discharged from Service under Rule 13(3) III (v) of Army Rules, 1954 as an "Undesirable Soldier". As per the information received by Records The Parachute Regiment vide 4 Mechanised Infantry (1 SIKH) letter dt 12.01.2019, Civil Suit No 1086/2001 filed by the Applicant in Civil Court, Narnaul (Haryana) was also dismissed on 20.09.2018, however, the Applicant did not inform the Respondents about the same. Further, since the Applicant had not rendered minimum qualifying service of 15 years for grant of Service Pension, he is not eligible for grant of Service Pension in terms of Rule 132 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1). The Respondents have placed reliance on AFT (RB), Jabalpur Order dt 07.09.2017 in OA No 87/2013 in the case titled *Ex Gnr DMT Kuldeep Singh Vs UOI & Ors* and submitted that the Applicant had utter disregard for military discipline and, hence, his prayer for reinstatement in service or grant of Service Pension cannot be considered. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that it is rather surprising that how the Applicant was awarded 4^th punishment on 20.09.1981, ie., before issue of Show Cause Notice to him on 23.09.1981 and submission of his reply on 25.09.1981, which is bad in the eyes of law. Therefore, the punishment awarded to the Applicant was arbitrary and it cannot be considered against the Applicant for discharging him from Service. Further, the Respondents have not placed on record copies of preliminary Court of Inquiry and final order of the Formation Commander for discharge of the Applicant from Service. Learned Counsel for the Applicant also submitted that the Applicant never preferred any Civil Suit before Civil Court, Narnaul (Haryana) nor any suit of the Applicant was dismissed by any Court in India. In support of his claim, he submitted that the Applicant's Service No is 13609661Y whereas the service of Ex Ptr Sumer Singh mentioned in Civil Suit No 1086/2001 is 13608681 (Annexure VI, Page 56) and, hence, strict action should be taken against the Respondents who executed the Affidavit in support of the Reply. The Applicant further submitted that the 4^th red ink entry punishment with regard to theft of wrist watch of a civilian is a civil offence and it should have been tried by Court Martial as an offence under Section 52(a) cannot be tried summarily under Section 80 of Army Act, 1950 and, hence, the 4^th red ink entry is illegal and cannot be read against the Applicant. In support of his claim, the Applicant also placed reliance on AFT (RB) Kolkata Order dt 12.04.2016 in OA No 73/2014 in the case titled ***Ashutosh Kumar Vs UOI & Ors*** and AFT (RB) Lucknow Order dt 07.04.2015 in TA No 966/2010 in the case titled ***Sep Naresh Chandra Singh Vs UOI & Ors***.

5. Capt Vishaka Bhosale, OIC Legal Cell vehemently opposed the contention of the Counsel for the Applicant and submitted that the Applicant is trying to mislead the Court by mixing the dates of Show Cause Notice with the date of award of the 4^th punishment. This could have been a typographical error and cannot be verified in the absence of service records of the Applicant as the same have been destroyed by burning after expiry of mandatory retention period. Further, after award of four red ink entries, issue of Show Cause Notice is mandatory and since, the Applicant was awarded fourth punishment on 20.09.1981, Show Cause Notice dt 23.09.1981 could have been issued for his contemplated discharge from Service or the other reasons, which the Applicant replied on 25.09.1981.

6. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

7. Procedure for removal of Undesirable Soldiers (as applicable in the present case since the Applicant was discharged from Service on 17.11.1981) has been mentioned in Army HQ letter No A/13210/159/AG/PS-2(c) dt 23.08.1965, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- **"JCOs, WO's and OR who have proved Undesirable**

2 (a). *An individual who has proved himself undesirable and whose retention in the service is considered inadvisable will be recommended for discharge/dismissal. Dismissal should only be recommended where a court martial, if held, would have awarded a sentence of not less than dismissal, but trial by court martial is considered impracticable or inexpedient. In other words, recommendations will be for discharge.*

(b) to (d) xxxxxx

(e) *In cases where it is considered that all or part of JCOs/WOs/ORs pension should be withheld, this fact will be noted on the recommendation for discharge.*

**Procedure for Dismissal/Discharge of Undesirable JCOs/WOs/OR**

4. *AR 13 and 17 provides that a JCO/WO/OR whose dismissal or discharge is contemplated will be given a show-cause notice. As an exception to this, services of such a person may be terminated without giving him a show-cause notice provided the competent authority is satisfied that it is not expedient or reasonably practicable to serve such a notice. Such cases should be rare, eg, where the serving of a show-cause notice is dispensed with, the reasons for doing so are required to be recorded. See proviso to AR 17.*

*Subject to the foregoing, the procedure to be followed for dismissal or discharge of a person under AR 13 or AR 17, as the case may be, is set out below.*

**Preliminary Enquiry**

(a) *Before recommending dismissal or discharge of an individual the authority concerned will ensure:-*

(i) that an impartial enquiry – not necessarily a Court of Inquiry – has been made into the allegations against him and that he has had adequate opportunity of putting up his defence or explanation and of adducing evidence in this defence;

(ii) that the allegations have been substantiated and that the extreme step of termination of the individual's service is warranted on the merits of the case.

**Forwarding of Recommendations**

(b) The recommendation for dismissal or discharge will be forwarded, through normal channels, to the authority competent to authorize the dismissal or discharge, as the case may be, along with a copy of the proceedings of the enquiry, referred to in (a) above.

**Action by Intermediate Authority**

(c) Intermediate authorities through whom the recommendations pass will consider the case in the light of what is stated in (a) above and make their own recommendations as to the disposal of the case.

**Action by Competent Authority**

(d) The authority competent to authorize the dismissal or discharge of the individual will consider the case in the light of what is stated in (a) above. If he is satisfied that the termination of the individual's service is warranted, he should direct that a show-cause notice be issued to the individual in accordance with AR 13 or AR 17 as the case may be. No lower authority will direct the issue of a show-cause notice. The show-cause notice should aver the full particulars of the cause of action against the individual. The allegations must be specific and supported by sufficient details to enable the individual to clearly understand and reply to them. A copy of the proceedings of the enquiry held in the case will also be supplied to the individual and he will be afforded reasonable time to state in writing any reasons he may have to urge against the proposed dismissal or discharge.

**Action on receipt of the Reply to the Show Cause Notice**

(e) The individual's reply to the show-cause notice will be forwarded through normal channels to the authority competent to authorize his dismissal/discharge together with a copy of each of the show-cause notice and the proceedings of the enquiry held in the case and recommendations of each forwarding authority as to the disposal of the case.

**Note :** As far as possible, JCO, WO and OR awaiting dismissal order will not be allowed to mix with other personnel.

**Final Orders by the Competent Authority**

(f) The authority competent to sanction the dismissal/discharge of the individual will before passing orders reconsider the case in the light of the individual's reply to the show-cause notice. A person who has been served with a show-cause notice for proposed dismissal may be ordered to be discharged if it is considered that discharge would meet the requirements of the case. If the competent authority considers that termination of the individual's service is not warranted but any of the actions referred to in (b) to (d) of para 2 above would meet the requirements of the case, he may pass orders accordingly. On the other hand, if the competent authority accepts the reply of the individual to the show-cause notice as entirely satisfactory, he will pass orders accordingly.

Carrying out Dismissal/Discharge

(g) On receipt of the orders of the competent authority for dismissal/ discharge, all action to effect dismissal/ discharge will be taken by the Regt Centre/ Record Office, or the unit, as the case may be."

8. Procedure for dismissal/discharge of Undesirable soldiers has been mentioned in Army HQ letter No A/13210/159/AG/PS-2(c) dt 28.12.1988, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- **"Procedure for dismissal/discharge of Undesirable JCOs/WOs/OR.**

4. AR 13 and 17 provide that a JCO/WO/OR whose dismissal or discharge is contemplated will be given a show cause notice. As an exception to this, services of such a person may be terminated without giving him a show cause notice provided the competent authority is satisfied that it is not expedient or reasonably practicable to serve such a notice. Such cases should be rare, eg., where the interests of the security or the State so require. Where the serving of a show cause notice is dispensed with, the reasons for doing so are required to be recorded. See proviso to AR 17.

5. xxx xxx xxx

सत्यमेव जयते

Note : 1. As far as possible, JCO, WO and OR awaiting dismissal orders will not be allowed to mix with other personnel.

2. Discharge from service consequent to four red ink entries is not a mandatory or legal requirement. In such cases, Commanding Officer must consider the nature of offences for which each red ink entry has been awarded and not be harsh with the individuals, especially when they are about to complete the pensionable service. Due consideration should be given to the long service, hard stations; and difficult living conditions that the OR has been exposed to during his service, and the discharge should be ordered only when it is absolutely necessary in the interest of service. Such discharge should be approved by the next higher Commander.

(g) **Carrying out dismissal/ discharge.** On receipt of the orders of the competent authority for dismissal/discharge, all action to effect dismissal/discharge will be taken by the Regt Centre/Record Office or unit, as the case may be"

9. Authorities empowered to authorize discharge are mentioned in Rule 13 of Army Rules, 1954, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- **"13. Authorities empowered to authorize discharge -**

(1) Each of the authorities specified in column 3 of the Table below, shall be the competent authority to discharge from service persons subject to the Act specified in Column 1 thereof on the grounds specified in column 2.

(2) Any power conferred by this rule on any of the aforesaid authorities shall also be exercisable by any other authority superior to it.

(2A) Where the Central Government or the Chief of the Army Staff decides that any person or class of persons subject to the Act should be discharged from service, either unconditionally or on the fulfilment of certain specified conditions, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the commanding officer shall also be the competent authority to discharge from service such person or any person belonging to such class in accordance with the said decision.

(3) In this table "commanding officer" means the officer commanding the corps or department to which the person to be discharged belongs except that in the case of junior commissioned officers and warrant officers of the Special Medical Section of the Army Medical Corps, the "commanding officer" means the Director of the Medical Services, Army, and in the case of junior commanding officers and warrant officers of Remounts, Veterinary and Farms, Corps, the "commanding officer" means the Director Remounts, Veterinary and Farms.

Table

<table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th>Category</th> <th>Grounds of discharge</th> <th>Competent authority to authorize discharge</th> <th>Manner of discharge</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Persons enrolled under the Act who have been attested</td> <td>III.<br/>(i) to (iv) xxx<br/>(v) All other classes</td> <td>Brigade/Sub-Area Commander<br/>सत्यमेव जयते</td> <td>The Brigade or Sub-Area Commander before ordering the discharge, shall, if the circumstances of the case permit give to the person whose discharge is contemplated an opportunity to show cause against the contemplated discharge.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

10. Procedures for dismissal or removal are mentioned in Section 17 of Army Rules, 1954, which reads as under:- **"17. Dismissal or removal by Chief of the Army Staff and by Other Officers.** - Save in the case where a person is dismissed or removed from service on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction by a Criminal Court or a Court-Martial, no person shall be dismissed or removed under Sub Section (1) or Sub-Section (3) of Section 20; unless he has been informed of the particulars of the cause of action against him and allowed reasonable time to state in writing any reasons he may have to urge against his dismissal or removal from the service:

Provided that if in the opinion of the officer competent to order the dismissal or removal, it is not expedient or reasonably practicable to comply with the provisions of this rule, he may after certifying to that effect, order the dismissal or removal without complying with the procedure set out in this rule. All cases of dismissal or removal under this rule where the prescribed procedure has not been complied with shall be reported to the Central Government."

11. The entitlement of pensionary benefits to the Armed Forces Personnel who are dismissed from Service is mentioned in Rule 113 (a) of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part 1), which reads as follows :- **"Individual Dismissed/Removed/Discharged under the Army Act.**

113 (a). An individual, who is dismissed under the provisions of the Army Act, is ineligible for pension or gratuity in respect of all previous service....."

1950 by the different commanding officers. It cannot be ignored that within a short period of over seven years of service, the Applicant was awarded four red ink entry punishments which proves his utter disregard for military service and discipline. He was given ample opportunities to improve but he did not mend his ways and repeated the offences. Such an indiscipline is detrimental to the morale of the Armed Forces Personnel and his further retention in service would have set a bad precedent and would also have a cascading effects on the other fellow soldiers in the unit and the Armed Forces as a whole. Moreover, since the Service documents of the Applicant have been destroyed after expiry of retention period, the objections raised by the Applicant cannot be taken cognizance of in the absence of any concrete evidence. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Applicant was validly discharged from Service on the orders of the Competent Authority and we find no illegality or infirmity in discharging him from service as an undesirable soldier.

15. Needless to emphasize that the Applicant had voluntarily joined the Army to serve the Nation, but contrary to the Oath administered to him, he clearly belied the trust reposed in him to remain disciplined while discharging his military duties. 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 Army, as mandated by the Constitution of India. Moreover, it cannot be ignored that the discipline is the foundation of the Armed Forces which cannot be compromised at any cost to maintain the operational efficiency mandated by the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the light of principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of **Sep Satgur Singh (Supra)**, the Applicant cannot be reinstated in service and his discharge from service cannot be said to be unjustified.

16. The judgments cited by the Applicant are quite distinct from the facts in this case and, hence, the same yardstick cannot be applied to the instant case. In this case, the Applicant had repeated offences time and again despite providing ample opportunities, he did not improve. Therefore, a stricter view has to be taken lest it leads to further indiscipline amongst the Army personnel. Mere rendering of seven years of service does not entitle a person for grant of service pension.

17. Moreover, the OA has been filed after an inordinate and inexplicable delay of more than 38 years. Therefore, this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of *C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining & Anr., (2008) 10 SCC 115*, which held that a stale claim cannot be permitted to be reviewed. Persons who slept over his right is not entitled for any indulgence. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, in the case of *Inderpal Singh Vs UOI & Ors* in Civil Writ Petition 8524/2000 decided on 04.08.2004, held that the petitioner who himself was not interested in pursuing the matter and kept silent for 11 years, hence delay cannot be condoned.

18. In-fine, we are of the considered view that the OA is devoid of merit on all counts and, hence, is dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

19. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

Ssy/-

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)

यतो न्यायः ततो जयः