Supreme Court mandates Invalidating Medical Board for discharge on medical grounds: Smt. Sulekha Rani vs. Union of India (2019) INSC 690 (16 July 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 16 July 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 690
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indira Banerjee, J.

Can a member of the armed forces be discharged from service on medical grounds without an Invalidating Medical Board? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the denial of family pension to the widow of an army personnel. The court clarified that discharge on medical grounds requires a mandatory recommendation from an Invalidating Medical Board. This judgment emphasizes the importance of following due procedure when discharging armed forces personnel due to medical reasons. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indira Banerjee, J, with the opinion authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

Case Background

The appellant’s spouse was enrolled in the Indian Army on 23 April 1994. He was posted at the Siachen Glacier from 13 September 1998, and was initially in SHAPE 1 medical category. On 30 August 2000, he was downgraded to a low medical category P2. Subsequently, he was transferred to a counter-insurgency area in Jammu and Kashmir on 19 November 2000. He was discharged from service on 31 August 2001. About six years later, he passed away on 30 September 2007. The appellant, his widow, then initiated proceedings before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) for the grant of pension, which was denied.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) dismissed the appellant’s Original Application, denying her claim for pension. The AFT rejected the claim for pension in respect of the service rendered by her deceased spouse in the Indian Army. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Rule 13 of the Army Rules, 1954, which specifies the authorities empowered to authorize discharge from service. Specifically, Rule 13(3)(III) deals with discharge on medical grounds. The relevant sub-clauses are:

• Rule 13(3)(III)(iii): This clause stipulates that if a person is found medically unfit for further service, the discharge can only be carried out on the recommendation of an Invalidating Board.
• Rule 13(3)(III)(v): This is a residuary provision covering all other classes of discharge not covered under the preceding categories. It allows a Brigade/Sub-area Commander to discharge a person after giving them an opportunity to show cause against the discharge.

The Supreme Court also considered the Army Act, 1950, which provides the framework for the administration of the Indian Army.

The court noted that the provision contained in Rule 13(3)(III)(iii)(a) which provides for a discharge on the recommendations of the Release Board was inserted on 29 May 2010 and hence, has no application to the present case.

The Court also considered Rule 14(b) of the Army Rules, 1954 which states that a member is to be presumed in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service if there is no note or record at the time of entrance. In the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds any deterioration in his health is to be presumed due to service.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that her spouse was in SHAPE 1 medical category before being posted to Siachen Glacier.
• She contended that no Invalidation Medical Board was held before her spouse’s discharge, which is a violation of the rules.
• Relying on the decision in Dharamvir Singh v UOI [(2013) 7 SCC 316], the appellant submitted that a member of the force is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service if there is no contrary record at the time of entry.
• The appellant also relied on the decision in Union of India v Rajpal Singh [(2009) 1 SCC 216], where the court held that discharge without an Invalidating Board is invalid.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent argued that a show cause notice was issued to the appellant’s spouse on 2 March 2001, proposing his discharge due to his low medical category and the unavailability of a sheltered appointment.
• The respondent stated that the spouse had replied on 7 April 2001, accepting his discharge.
• The respondent contended that the spouse’s condition (Ectopic Kidney) was constitutional and not attributable to military service.
• The respondent argued that the decision in Dharam Singh (supra) deals with the provisions of Rule 14(b) and hence may not have application.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in that it relied on the principle that a member of the force is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service if there is no contrary record at the time of entry, and that any deterioration in health is to be presumed due to service. The respondent’s argument was based on the fact that the spouse had accepted his discharge and that his condition was constitutional and not attributable to military service.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the discharge of the appellant’s spouse was valid, given that no Invalidation Medical Board was convened before his discharge.

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:

Cases:

• Dharamvir Singh v UOI [(2013) 7 SCC 316] – The Supreme Court of India held that a disease which has led to an individual’s discharge or death will ordinarily be treated to have been arisen in service, if no note of it was made at the time of the individual’s acceptance for service in the Armed Forces. The Court also held that a member is to be presumed in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service if there is no note or record at the time of entrance. In the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds any deterioration in his health is to be presumed due to service.
• Union of India v Rajpal Singh [(2009) 1 SCC 216] – The Supreme Court of India held that when the discharge was on the ground of medical unfitness, the Rule prescribes a particular procedure for discharge. Thus, an order of discharge passed without subjecting the officer to an Invalidating Board would be contrary to the statutory rule.

Legal Provisions:

• Rule 13 of the Army Rules, 1954 – This rule specifies the authorities empowered to authorize discharge from service.
• Rule 13(3)(III)(iii) of the Army Rules, 1954 – This provision mandates that discharge on medical grounds must be based on the recommendation of an Invalidating Board.
• Rule 13(3)(III)(v) of the Army Rules, 1954 – This is a residuary provision covering all other classes of discharge.
• Rule 14(b) of the Army Rules, 1954 – This rule states that a member is to be presumed in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service if there is no note or record at the time of entrance. In the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds any deterioration in his health is to be presumed due to service.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on the principle laid down in Dharamvir Singh v UOI [(2013) 7 SCC 316] that a member of the force is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service if there is no contrary record at the time of entry.
• The Court relied on the principle laid down in Union of India v Rajpal Singh [(2009) 1 SCC 216] that when the discharge was on the ground of medical unfitness, the Rule prescribes a particular procedure for discharge. Thus, an order of discharge passed without subjecting the officer to an Invalidating Board would be contrary to the statutory rule.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural lapse in not convening an Invalidation Medical Board before discharging the appellant’s spouse. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Rule 13(3)(III)(iii) of the Army Rules, 1954, which requires an Invalidating Board for medical unfitness cases. The Court also relied on the principle that a member of the force is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service if there is no contrary record at the time of entry. The Court also relied on the precedent in Rajpal Singh, which held that discharge on medical grounds without an Invalidating Board is invalid. The Court also noted that the residuary provision under Rule 13(3)(III)(v) cannot be applied in cases of medical unfitness.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that the spouse’s acceptance of the show cause notice made the discharge valid. The court held that the specific procedure for discharge on medical grounds must be followed, and that the residuary provision cannot be used to circumvent the requirement of an Invalidation Medical Board. The court also relied on the principle that a member of the force is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service if there is no contrary record at the time of entry. The court also relied on the precedent in Rajpal Singh, which held that discharge on medical grounds without an Invalidating Board is invalid.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that specific procedures must be followed for discharge on medical grounds. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the rules and regulations governing the armed forces. The Court also held that the residuary provision cannot be used to circumvent the requirement of an Invalidation Medical Board.

The court stated, “The specific provision in regard to medical unfitness is provided in Rule 13(3)(III)(iii) where a person has been found medically unfit for further service. The manner of discharge provided is, “only on the recommendation of an Invalidating Board”.”

The court further stated, “In view of the foregoing interpretation of the relevant rule, we are in complete agreement with the High Court that where a JCO is sought to be discharged on the ground of medical unfitness for further service, his case has to be dealt with strictly in accordance with the procedure contemplated in Clause I (ii) in Column 2 of the Table appended to Rule 13.”

The court also observed, “The provisions Rule 13(3) (III) (v) upon which reliance has been placed had no application to the case. It would not operate in an area which is covered by medical unfitness.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indira Banerjee, J, with the opinion authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

Key Takeaways

• Discharge of armed forces personnel on medical grounds requires a mandatory recommendation from an Invalidation Medical Board.
• The residuary provision under Rule 13(3)(III)(v) of the Army Rules, 1954, cannot be used to circumvent the requirement of an Invalidation Medical Board in cases of medical unfitness.
• A member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service if there is no contrary record at the time of entry.
• This judgment reinforces the importance of following due process in the discharge of armed forces personnel.
• The family of a deceased armed forces personnel may be entitled to family pension if the discharge was not in accordance with the rules.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that for the purposes of computing the family pension, the service of the deceased spouse of the appellant should be deemed to have continued until 30 September 2007. No arrears of wages shall be payable between the date of discharge and the date of death. The arrears of family pension shall be paid to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the discharge of a member of the armed forces on the ground of medical unfitness must be carried out only on the recommendation of an Invalidation Medical Board. This judgment reinforces the principle that specific procedures must be followed for discharge on medical grounds, and that the residuary provision cannot be used to circumvent the requirement of an Invalidation Medical Board. This case clarifies the interpretation of Rule 13 of the Army Rules, 1954, and provides guidance on the procedure to be followed in cases of medical unfitness. This case also reinforces the principle that a member of the force is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service if there is no contrary record at the time of entry.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The court held that the discharge of the appellant’s spouse was illegal due to the failure to convene an Invalidation Medical Board. The appellant was held to be entitled to family pension, with the service of her deceased spouse deemed to have continued until his death. This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures for discharging armed forces personnel, particularly in cases involving medical unfitness.