Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Army Personnel with Multiple Red Ink Entries: Sep. Satgur Singh vs. Union of India

Date of the Judgment: 2nd September 2019

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 1857 of 2018

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can an army personnel be discharged from service for having multiple red ink entries in their service record? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, examining the validity of discharging an army personnel due to repeated disciplinary issues. The Court considered whether the procedure followed for the discharge was fair and in line with existing regulations. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta, with Justice Hemant Gupta authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, Sepoy Satgur Singh, was discharged from service after 11 years, 9 months, and 15 days of service due to seven red ink entries in his service record. These entries were for various disciplinary infractions, including absence from duty. The appellant had received multiple punishments under the Army Act, 1950 for these infractions. The discharge order was based on the grounds that the appellant was a habitual offender and his retention in service was not suitable.

The appellant received a show-cause notice on September 22, 2004, stating that he was deemed undesirable and unsuitable for continued service due to seven punishments. The punishments included:

• Two punishments in 1995
• One in 1998
• Two in 2000
• Two in 2004

The appellant responded to the show-cause notice by stating that he had family problems and no other means to support his children. He pleaded that he would not repeat his mistakes.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Chandigarh, Regional Bench at Chandimandir, upheld the discharge of the appellant on April 30, 2014. The AFT found that the discharge was justified given the seven red ink entries in the appellant’s service record. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of India against the order of the AFT.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Army Instructions dated December 28, 1988, particularly para 5(a), which outlines the procedure for dismissal or discharge of undesirable Junior Commissioned Officers (JCOs), Warrant Officers (WOs), and Other Ranks (OR). This instruction mandates that before recommending discharge or dismissal, a preliminary inquiry must be conducted. According to the instructions:

“(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 his 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.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the discharge was not sustainable because no regular inquiry was conducted by the Commanding Officer as required by the Supreme Court’s judgment in Veerendra Kumar Dubey v. Chief of Army Staff & Ors. [(2016) 2 SCC 627].
• The appellant contended that the red ink entries alone are not sufficient for discharge and that a proper inquiry, as per para 5(a) of the Army Instructions, was necessary.
• The appellant submitted that he had family problems and no other source of income to support his children and that he would not commit any mistake again.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents argued that the show-cause notice and the appellant’s reply, along with the consideration of the same by the General Officer Commanding, satisfied the requirements of a preliminary inquiry.
• The respondents contended that the appellant was a habitual offender, as evidenced by his repeated absence from duty and the resulting punishments.
• The respondents submitted that the discharge was justified due to the appellant’s repeated misconduct and unsuitability for service.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the discharge of the appellant was justified given the procedure followed and the nature of the red ink entries in his service record.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Case Law:

• Veerendra Kumar Dubey v. Chief of Army Staff & Ors. [(2016) 2 SCC 627] – Supreme Court of India. The Court discussed this case and distinguished the facts of the present case from the facts in this case.

Legal Provisions:

• Army Act, 1950:
  • Section 39(a): Relates to absence without leave.
  • Section 39(b): Relates to absence without leave.
  • Section 51: Relates to offenses related to insubordination.
  • Section 63: Relates to offenses related to violation of good order and discipline.
• Army Instructions dated December 28, 1988:
  • Para 5(a): Procedure for dismissal/discharge of undesirable JCOs/WOs/OR, mandating a preliminary inquiry.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Veerendra Kumar Dubey v. Chief of Army Staff & Ors. [(2016) 2 SCC 627]: The Court distinguished the facts of the present case from the facts in this case. The court held that the judgment in Veerendra Kumar Dubey does not mandate a regular enquiry but only a preliminary enquiry.
• Army Act, 1950: The Court referred to the sections under which the appellant was punished to establish the fact that the appellant was a habitual offender and was punished for absence from duty.
• Army Instructions dated December 28, 1988: The Court clarified that the preliminary enquiry mandated by para 5(a) does not require a regular departmental enquiry but only a semblance of fair decision making process.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellant was a habitual offender with a history of repeated misconduct. The Court emphasized that the appellant had been punished multiple times for absence from duty, which is a serious breach of discipline in the armed forces. The Court also noted that the appellant’s reply to the show-cause notice did not provide any substantial explanation for his repeated absences, other than vague family circumstances. The Court distinguished the facts of the present case from the facts in Veerendra Kumar Dubey and held that a preliminary enquiry was sufficient and the same was satisfied in the present case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations. The Court focused on the fact that the appellant was a habitual offender and the preliminary enquiry was sufficient.

The Court’s reasoning was that the preliminary enquiry was sufficient and the appellant was a habitual offender. The Court also held that the appellant had not offered any explanation for his absence from duty on seven occasions. The Court also held that the discharge was not unjustified.

The Court held that the parameters laid down in para 5(a) of the Army Instructions dated December 28, 1988 stand satisfied.

The court quoted:

• “The test of preliminary enquiry will be satisfied if an explanation of a personnel is submitted and upon consideration, an order is passed thereon.”
• “In the present case, the appellant has not offered any explanation in the reply filed except giving vague family circumstance.”
• “Since the absence of duty was on several different occasions for which he was imposed punishment of imprisonment, therefore, the order of discharge cannot be said to be unjustified.”

Key Takeaways

• A preliminary inquiry, not a full departmental inquiry, is sufficient for discharging an army personnel with multiple red ink entries.
• Repeated misconduct and absence from duty can lead to discharge from service.
• Vague explanations for misconduct are not sufficient to prevent discharge.
• The authorities are required to consider the reply to the show cause notice and pass an order on the same.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a preliminary enquiry is sufficient for discharging an army personnel with multiple red ink entries and the same is satisfied if a show cause notice is issued and reply is considered. This case clarifies that the judgment in Veerendra Kumar Dubey does not mandate a regular enquiry but only a preliminary enquiry.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the discharge of Sepoy Satgur Singh, emphasizing that repeated misconduct and absence from duty, coupled with a lack of substantial explanation, justify the discharge. The Court clarified that a preliminary inquiry, not a full departmental inquiry, is sufficient in such cases, and the show-cause notice and consideration of the reply was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of preliminary enquiry.