Supreme Court Reinstates Army Recruits Dismissed Over Alleged Fake Certificates: Babanna Machched vs. Union of India (2024) INSC 95 (9 February 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 9 February 2024
Citation: (2024) INSC 95
Judges: Bela M. Trivedi, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.
Can an army recruit be dismissed from service for submitting fake relationship certificates, even if they claim they applied under the general category? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question, overturning the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision. The court held that the recruits were wrongly dismissed because the authorities did not consider their claim that they had applied under the general category and had not submitted any relationship certificates. This judgment was authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal.

Case Background

The case involves several appellants who were recruited into the Army by the Maratha Light Infantry Regimental Centre (MLIRC) under the Unit Headquarters Quota. After serving for about three years, they were issued show cause notices alleging that they had obtained enrollment either with fake sports person certificates or false relationship certificates. While those with fake sports certificates were reinstated, the appellants, accused of submitting fake relationship certificates, were terminated. The appellants claimed they had applied under the general category and had not submitted any relationship certificates.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellants’ services were terminated by the Maratha Light Infantry Regimental Centre (MLIRC). Their departmental appeals failed, after which they approached the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed their original applications and review petitions, upholding the discharge certificates. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to instructions regarding enrollment into the Army under the Unit Headquarters Quota (UHQ). These instructions initially allowed Regiments/Corps to enroll 15% of the total yearly demand, which was later increased to 25% and then to 50%. The instructions provided priority to certain categories of personnel, such as sons and grandsons of servicemen and ex-servicemen, but also allowed for open category recruitment if vacancies remained. The relevant portion of the instructions regarding open category recruitment states:

“7. Open Category: In case of Additional vacancies for recruitment available with Regimental Centre open category of personnel based on merit may be taken provided they meet the ___________.”

The appeals were filed under Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, which provides for appeals to the Supreme Court from decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal.

Arguments

The appellants argued that they were recruited under the general category, not as relatives of servicemen or ex-servicemen. They claimed they had never submitted any relationship certificates and therefore could not be charged with producing fake certificates. They contended that the authorities and the Tribunal had failed to consider their explanation and had dismissed them solely based on the allegation that the relationship certificates were fake, without establishing that they had indeed submitted such certificates.

The respondents argued that the Unit Headquarters Quota was exclusively for relatives of servicemen/ex-servicemen, and there was no general category for recruitment. They contended that the appellants’ claim of being recruited under the general category was an afterthought, similar to the plea made by the sportsmen who were later reinstated. They also relied on a newspaper clipping to support their claim, although this clipping was not part of the official record.

The innovativeness of the argument lies in the appellants’ assertion that they were recruited under the general category, which was not explicitly prohibited by the recruitment guidelines. This argument challenged the respondents’ claim that the recruitment was exclusively for relatives of servicemen/ex-servicemen.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the appellants were enrolled/recruited by giving benefit of relationship with the servicemen/ex-servicemen.
2. Whether the appellants have produced any relationship certificate(s).
3. Whether their discharge/dismissal from service is bad in law for non-consideration of their explanation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the discharge/dismissal of the appellants was invalid due to non-consideration of their plea that they had not submitted any relationship certificates. The Court noted that the recruitment under the Unit Headquarters Quota was not exclusively for relatives of servicemen/ex-servicemen and that the appellants had applied under the general category. The Court emphasized that the authorities had not recorded any finding that the appellants had actually produced such certificates or that their explanation was false.

The Court cited the following authorities:

✓ S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India [(1990) 4 SCC 594]: The Court followed this case, stating that an order passed without consideration of material evidence or plea is violative of Principles of Natural Justice.

✓ Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi [(1978) 1 SCC 405]: The Court followed this case, stating that the validity of an order must be tested on the basis of the reasoning contained therein, and authorities cannot supplement it with extraneous material.

✓ Ex Sig. Man Kanhaiya Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors. [(2018) 14 SCC 279]: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the fraudulent enrollment was admitted to be on the basis of fake relationship certificates, unlike the present case.

✓ S. Muthu Kumaran vs. Union of India and Ors. [(2017) 4 SCC 609]: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the dismissal was on the ground of fraudulent recruitment which was found to be proved.

The Court stated:

“In the case at hand, it was not the case of the respondents ever that the vacancies on which the appellants have been enrolled/recruited were only supposed to be filled up by the relatives of the servicemen/ex-servicemen and not by a general category person or that the posts advertised were only for the alleged reserved category.”

“The discharge certificate simply states that the appellants are dismissed from service under the orders of Commandant for the reason of obtaining enrollment/recruitment by fraudulent means referring to submission of fake relationship certificates.”

“The order of the Commandant states that at the time of enrollment/recruitment in December, 2009 under the Unit Headquarters Quota at the Maratha Light Infantry Regimental Centre, the relationship certificates of the appellants upon verification from records have been found to be manipulated and false.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellants’ explanation that they had applied under the general category and had not submitted any relationship certificates was not considered by the authorities. The Court emphasized that the recruitment process allowed for open category recruitment and that there was no evidence to prove that the appellants had submitted fake certificates. The Court also noted that the authorities had not conducted any inquiry to ascertain whether the appellants had actually produced relationship certificates. The Court’s reasoning was further influenced by the principles of natural justice, which require that all material evidence and pleas be considered before passing an order.

Key Takeaways

• Recruitment under the Unit Headquarters Quota is not exclusively for relatives of servicemen/ex-servicemen; it also includes a general category.
• Authorities must consider all explanations and material evidence before dismissing an employee.
• Dismissal orders without proper inquiry and consideration of the employee’s defense are invalid.
• The validity of an order must be tested on the basis of the reasoning contained therein, and authorities cannot supplement it with extraneous material.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders of discharge/dismissal and directed the reinstatement of the appellants with all consequential benefits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that an order of dismissal is invalid if the authorities do not consider the explanation given by the employee and if there is no evidence to support the allegations. This case clarifies that recruitment under the Unit Headquarters Quota is not exclusively reserved for relatives of servicemen/ex-servicemen and that general category candidates can also be recruited. It reinforces the principles of natural justice and the need for authorities to consider all material evidence and pleas before passing an order.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Babanna Machched vs. Union of India (2024) INSC 95 emphasizes the importance of due process and fair consideration of an employee’s defense in disciplinary matters. The Court held that the appellants were wrongly dismissed because the authorities did not consider their claim that they had applied under the general category and had not submitted any relationship certificates. This decision reinforces the principle that authorities cannot dismiss an employee based on allegations alone without considering the employee’s explanation and without any evidence to support the allegations.

Category

Parent category: Service Law
Child categories: Recruitment, Dismissal, Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, Unit Headquarters Quota, Principles of Natural Justice

Parent category: Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007
Child category: Section 31, Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007

FAQ

Q: Can the army dismiss a recruit for submitting fake relationship certificates?
A: Yes, the army can dismiss a recruit for submitting fake relationship certificates. However, the authorities must consider the recruit’s explanation and have evidence to support the allegations.

Q: What if the recruit claims they applied under the general category and did not submit any relationship certificates?
A: If the recruit claims they applied under the general category and did not submit any relationship certificates, the authorities must consider this explanation. They cannot dismiss the recruit without any evidence to prove the submission of fake certificates.

Q: What is the Unit Headquarters Quota in army recruitment?
A: The Unit Headquarters Quota is a system of recruitment in the army that prioritizes relatives of servicemen and ex-servicemen. However, it also allows for open category recruitment if vacancies remain.

Q: What is the significance of the Supreme Court’s judgment in this case?
A: The Supreme Court’s judgment emphasizes the importance of due process and fair consideration of an employee’s defense in disciplinary matters. It clarifies that authorities cannot dismiss an employee based on allegations alone without considering the employee’s explanation and without any evidence to support the allegations.