Supreme Court overturns discharge based on red ink entries in Army: Narain Singh vs. Union of India (2019)

Date of the Judgment: September 20, 2019
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Arun Mishra J., M. R. Shah J., and B. R. Gavai J.
Can a soldier be discharged from service solely based on a few red ink entries, especially when nearing pensionable service? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in the case of *Narain Singh vs. Union of India*, ultimately ruling against the mechanical discharge of a soldier based on such entries. The bench, composed of Justices Arun Mishra, M. R. Shah, and B. R. Gavai, delivered a judgment that emphasizes the need for a comprehensive review of a soldier’s service record before discharge.

Case Background

Narain Singh, the appellant, joined the Indian Army as a Driver on October 15, 1980. He was later promoted to ALD and then to the rank of Lance Dafedar. During his service, between June 7, 1993, and May 3, 1994, he received four red ink entries for various disciplinary infractions. The respondents discharged him from service under Rule 13(3)(III)(v) of the Army Rules, 1954, solely based on these entries. At the time of his discharge, Narain Singh had served for 13 years, 7 months, and 6 days, falling short of the required service for a pension by 1 year, 5 months, and 24 days. Aggrieved by this, he challenged his discharge before the Armed Forces Tribunal, which dismissed his application, and subsequently his review application was also dismissed, leading him to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Armed Forces Tribunal dismissed Narain Singh’s application, upholding the discharge order. The Tribunal’s decision was based on the fact that Narain Singh had received four red ink entries, which, according to the respondents, justified his discharge under Rule 13(3)(III)(v) of the Army Rules, 1954. The Tribunal did not consider the length of service or the nature of the offenses leading to the red ink entries. The review application was also dismissed, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Rule 13(3)(III)(v) of the Army Rules, 1954, which allows for the discharge of an army personnel. The specific rule was not quoted in the source document. The Supreme Court also referred to its previous judgment in *Veerendra Kumar Dubey v. Chief of Army Staff and Others* 2016 (2) SCC 627, which clarified that the mere awarding of four red ink entries does not automatically mandate discharge. The court emphasized that a holistic review of the soldier’s service record is required.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• Shri Shoumit Mukherjee, the learned advocate for the appellant, argued that the discharge was solely based on four red ink entries awarded within a short span of one year, after 13 years of otherwise unblemished service.
• It was contended that the red ink entries were a result of victimization because the appellant did not comply with certain illegal directions given by Captain D. Mahapatra.
• The appellant argued that the nature of the offenses leading to the red ink entries did not warrant discharge, especially considering his long service and proximity to pensionable service.
• Relying on *Veerendra Kumar Dubey v. Chief of Army Staff and Others* 2016 (2) SCC 627, it was argued that the Commanding Officer must consider the nature of the offense and the length of service before ordering a discharge.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• Shri K. M. Natraj, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, argued that the appellant had received four red ink entries, which were not challenged at any point.
• It was submitted that the discharge was in accordance with Rule 13(3)(III)(v) of the Army Rules, 1954, and that the procedure was duly followed.
• The respondents contended that the discharge was necessary to maintain discipline in the Army.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the provided text. However, the core issue is whether the discharge of the appellant under Rule 13(3)(III)(v) of the Army Rules, 1954, based solely on four red ink entries, was justified, especially considering his length of service and the nature of the offenses.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

• *Veerendra Kumar Dubey v. Chief of Army Staff and Others* 2016 (2) SCC 627 – The Supreme Court of India relied on this case to emphasize that the mere awarding of four red ink entries does not automatically mandate discharge. The court clarified that the Commanding Officer must consider the nature of the offense and the length of service before ordering a discharge.

Legal Provisions:

• Rule 13(3)(III)(v) of the Army Rules, 1954 – This rule allows for the discharge of army personnel. The Court held that the Rule was not followed correctly in this case.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• *Veerendra Kumar Dubey v. Chief of Army Staff and Others* 2016 (2) SCC 627: The Supreme Court followed this precedent, reiterating that mere award of four red ink entries does not automatically warrant discharge. The Court emphasized the need to consider the nature of the offense and length of service.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the fact that the appellant was discharged from service without due consideration of his long service and the nature of the offenses that led to the red ink entries. The Court emphasized that a mechanical application of rules without considering individual circumstances is unjust. The Court was also concerned that the discharge occurred just before the appellant was about to complete his pensionable service, which seemed disproportionate to the offenses committed.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The Court noted that the appellant had served for 13 years, 7 months, and 6 days, and was discharged just before completing his pensionable service.
• The Court reviewed the nature of the offenses leading to the red ink entries, noting that they were not severe enough to warrant discharge. “Considering the nature of offences for which the red ink entries were made, we are of the opinion that on the basis of such red ink entries, the appellant could not have been discharged from service and that too after rendering 13 years of service and when he was about to complete the pensionable service.”
• The Court emphasized that mere award of four red ink entries does not automatically mandate discharge, citing *Veerendra Kumar Dubey* case. “mere award of four red ink entries does not make the discharge mandatory. It is further observed that four red ink entries is not some kind of Laxman Rekha, which if crossed would by itself render the individual concerned undesirable or unworthy of retention in the force.”
• The Court observed that the authority failed to consider the long service and the nature of offenses. “Coming then to the case at hand, we find that there is nothing on record to suggest that the authority concerned has taken into consideration the long service rendered by the appellant.”
• The Court concluded that the discharge was mechanical and not sustainable in law. “Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of discharge is wholly unjustified and not sustainable at law.”

The Court did not explicitly mention any alternative interpretations considered and rejected. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• Discharge from service cannot be solely based on the number of red ink entries.
• The nature of the offenses leading to red ink entries must be considered.
• Long service and proximity to pensionable service are crucial factors that must be taken into account.
• Authorities must conduct a holistic review of a soldier’s service record before ordering discharge.
• Mechanical application of rules without considering individual circumstances is unjust.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the discharge order and directed that the appellant be entitled to all consequential benefits as if the order of discharge was not passed. This includes continuous service benefits, including pension. The monetary benefits payable to the appellant were directed to be released within four months from the date of the order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the discharge of a soldier solely based on four red ink entries without considering the nature of the offenses and the length of service is not justified. This case reinforces the principle established in *Veerendra Kumar Dubey* that a holistic review is required, and it clarifies that a mechanical application of rules is not acceptable. The judgment emphasizes the need for a balanced approach, ensuring that discipline is maintained without causing undue hardship to soldiers with long and otherwise satisfactory service records.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in *Narain Singh vs. Union of India* underscores the importance of a fair and comprehensive review process before discharging a soldier from service. The Court ruled that a discharge based solely on a few red ink entries, without considering the nature of the offenses and the length of service, is unjust and unsustainable. This decision reinforces the need for a balanced approach that respects both the need for discipline and the rights of soldiers who have served honorably for many years.