Supreme Court Clarifies Discharge Rules for Assam Rifles Personnel: Amarendra Kumar Pandey vs. Union of India (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: July 14, 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 655
Judges: Surya Kant, J. and J.B. Pardiwala, J.
Can a member of the Assam Rifles be automatically discharged from service for accumulating four “Red Ink” entries? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a Rifleman who was discharged for this very reason. This judgment clarifies the discretionary power of the authorities in such cases, emphasizing that discharge is not automatic and requires a careful consideration of the circumstances.

Case Background

The appellant, Amarendra Kumar Pandey, joined the Assam Rifles as a Rifleman in 1993. On January 31, 2004, he was discharged from service by an order issued by Lt. Col Offg Comdt. The discharge order cited that Pandey had received four Red Ink entries during his service, making his continued employment undesirable. These entries were for various minor infractions, including overstaying leave to care for his ailing mother, being in an out-of-bounds area, losing his identity card, and playing cards alone.

The discharge order stated that Pandey was given an opportunity to explain the reasons for the entries, but his explanation was deemed unsatisfactory by the competent authority. Although the order mentioned that Pandey would be entitled to pension and gratuity, the discharge was based on the premise that he was an “incorrigible offender.”

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially challenged his discharge at the Guwahati High Court by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 2738 of 2002. A Single Judge of the High Court, on January 19, 2015, allowed the writ petition, setting aside the discharge order. The Single Judge referred to a Division Bench decision of the same High Court, which held that the power to discharge based on four Red Ink entries was discretionary and not mandatory. The matter was remitted back to the authorities for reconsideration.

However, the Union of India appealed this decision, and a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court reversed the Single Judge’s decision on December 21, 2017. The Division Bench held that neither the Assam Rifles Act, 1941 nor the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 required the authority to record reasons for discharge, and that serving a notice and providing an opportunity to explain was sufficient. The Division Bench stated that the Commandant had the discretion to discharge a person with four or more Red Ink entries and was not required to record reasons for satisfaction in the discharge order.

Legal Framework

The discharge of the appellant was purportedly done under the following provisions:

• Section 4(a) of the Assam Rifles Act, 1941: This section empowers the Commandant to discharge personnel.
• Para 24, Chapter VIII of the Assam Rifles Manual: This provision allows the Commandant to dismiss any member of the Assam Rifles below the rank of Jemadar. It states that dismissal should be a last resort and not ordered until other means of punishment have been tried. It also notes that dismissal is appropriate for “incorrigible offenders; confirmed bad characters, confirmed drunkards, for offences involving moral disgrace, fraud and dishonesty, continued and willful disobedience or neglect.”
• Para 6 of Record Office Instruction (ROI) 4/99: This instruction outlines the procedure for discharge/retirement from service of Assam Rifles personnel. It states that the Commandant may invoke the power to dismiss or remove a member below the rank of Naib Subedar if they have four Red Ink entries. It also suggests that discharge under this provision should be avoided as far as practicable because personnel discharged on this account are not eligible for pension.

The Assam Rifles Manual states:

“A Commandant may dismiss any member of the Assam Rifles below the rank of Jemadar. The word “dismissal” should be restricted to the case of an officer removed with disgrace. In other cases “removal” is the proper word to be used. A “dimissed” officer may not be re-employed. Dismissal is the last resource, and should not ordinarily be ordered until all other means of punishment have been tried and failed. For incorrigible offenders; confirmed bad characters, confirmed drunkards, for offences involving moral disgrace, fraud and dishonesty, continued and willful disobedience or neglect, it is generally the only appropriate punishment”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that discharge is not mandatory even after four Red Ink entries. The use of the word “may” in the relevant rules indicates that the disciplinary authority has discretion.
• He contended that there is a difference between major and minor misconducts, and the four Red Ink entries in his case were for minor infractions.
• The discharge order did not provide any reasons for the decision, which is necessary when discretionary powers are exercised.
• The appellant also raised a plea of malafide against the authority, which was not considered.
• The appellant relied on Record Office Instruction No. 4 of 1999, which states that discharge should be avoided as far as practicable because personnel discharged on this account are not eligible for pension.
• He also cited the Assam Rifles Manual, which states that dismissal should be a last resort.
• The appellant cited Virendra Kumar Dubey v. Chief of Army Staff & Ors., (2016) 2 SCC 627 and Vijay Shankar Mishra v. Union of India and Ors., (2017) 1 SCC 795, where the Supreme Court held that discharge is not automatic after four Red Ink entries and requires consideration of the nature of the misconduct.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents argued that the High Court was correct in stating that it was not necessary for the authority to assign reasons for the discharge order.
• They submitted that four Red Ink entries were sufficient for the authority to form a subjective satisfaction that the appellant was not fit to be retained in service.
• The respondents stated that the appellant was given a show-cause notice and an opportunity to be heard.
• The respondents argued that the appellant only offered an apology and cited his poor family background, but did not offer any substantial explanation for his misconduct.
• They relied on Union of India v. Balwant Singh, (2015) 14 SCC 389 and Satgur Singh v. UOI & Ors., (2019) 9 SCC 205, to support their claim that a detailed inquiry is not necessary in such cases.

Submissions Categorized:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned order?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓The Court relied on Virendra Kumar Dubey [CITATION] and Vijay Shankar Mishra [CITATION] to emphasize that discharge is not automatic after four Red Ink entries and requires consideration of the nature of the misconduct. The court used these cases to reinforce the principle that discharge requires application of mind to the circumstances and is not automatic after multiple punishments.

✓The Court distinguished Union of India v. Balwant Singh [CITATION], noting that it was not referred to in Virendra Kumar Dubey.

✓The Court distinguished Satgur Singh v. UOI & Ors. [CITATION], noting that it was based on the appellant’s failure to explain his absence from duty on several occasions.

✓The Court relied on Director of Public Prosecutions v. Head [CITATION], Reg. v. Governor of Brixton Prison, Armah, Ex Parte [CITATION], Rasbihari v. State of Orissa [CITATION], Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S.D. Agarwal and another [CITATION], Barium Chemicals Ltd. and another v. Company Law Board and others [CITATION], Bean v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries [CITATION], Farmer v. Cotton’s Trustees [CITATION], Muthu Gounder v. Government of Madras [CITATION], Iveagh (Earl of) v. Minister of Housing and Local Govt. [CITATION], Natesa Asari v. State of Madras [CITATION], Ram Manohar v. State of Bihar [CITATION], Dwarka Das v. State of J. and K. [CITATION], Motilall v. State of Bihar [CITATION] and (1967) 1 AC 13 [CITATION] to support the principles of judicial review, reasonableness, and the need for proper application of legal and statutory terms.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that discretionary powers must be exercised reasonably and with due consideration of all relevant factors. The Court emphasized that the mere accumulation of four Red Ink entries does not automatically warrant discharge from service. Instead, the authority must examine the nature and gravity of the misconduct, the individual’s explanation, and other relevant circumstances before making a decision. The Court was concerned that the discharge order was passed without proper application of mind and without recording reasons, which is essential when exercising discretionary powers.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that discretionary powers must be exercised reasonably and with due consideration of all relevant factors. The Court emphasized that the mere accumulation of four Red Ink entries does not automatically warrant discharge from service. Instead, the authority must examine the nature and gravity of the misconduct, the individual’s explanation, and other relevant circumstances before making a decision. The Court was concerned that the discharge order was passed without proper application of mind and without recording reasons, which is essential when exercising discretionary powers.

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the argument that four Red Ink entries automatically justify discharge. However, the Court rejected this interpretation, emphasizing that the word “may” in the relevant rules indicates that the disciplinary authority has discretion and that discharge is not mandatory. The Court also rejected the argument that no reasons need to be recorded in the discharge order, stating that discretionary powers require reasoned orders.

The Court’s decision was reached by applying the principles of judicial review and reasonableness, as well as by considering the precedents of Virendra Kumar Dubey and Vijay Shankar Mishra. The Court held that the discharge order was not sustainable because it was passed without proper application of mind and without recording reasons.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, with Justice Surya Kant concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

“The principal argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is that the discharge from service is not automatic or mandatory after four Red entries. Four Red entries are only a minimum requirement and cannot be the sole ground to order discharge.”

“The crux of the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case on Veerendra Kumar Dubey (supra) is that the only safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power by the authority would be to ensure that there is an enquiry, howsoever, summary and a finding about the defence set up by the individual besides consideration of the factors made relevant under the procedure.”

“Having regard to the nature of the misconduct alleged against the appellant we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if we set aside the order of discharge and treat the appellant herein to have been in service till the time, he could be said to have completed the qualifying service for grant of pension.”

Key Takeaways

• Discharge from service in the Assam Rifles based on four Red Ink entries is not automatic or mandatory.
• The disciplinary authority has discretion and must consider the nature and gravity of the misconduct.
• The authority must provide a reasoned order, explaining why discharge is necessary.
• The individual’s explanation must be considered and not dismissed summarily.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of fairness and reasonableness in disciplinary proceedings in the armed forces.

Potential Future Impact: This judgment will likely lead to more careful consideration of discharge cases in the Assam Rifles and other armed forces, ensuring that decisions are not arbitrary and are based on a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances. It will also likely lead to more reasoned orders and a greater focus on fairness and due process in disciplinary proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The order of discharge passed against the appellant is set aside.
• The appellant shall be treated ashaving been in service until the time he could be said to have completed the qualifying service for grant of pension.
• The appellant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.