Case laws

Ans: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. GIRIRAJ SHARMA  The respondent who was deputed to undergo a course as an electrician sought leave for 10 days on 10-12-1982, which was granted. While he was on leave he sent a telegram for extension of leave by 12 days which request came to be rejected. The respondent, however, joined duty on 22-12-1982 thereby overstaying the period of leave by 12 days (sic 2 days). For this misdemeanour his services came to be terminated by an order dated 7-5-1983. His departmental appeal as well as revision were also rejected, whereupon he filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of termination which writ petition came to be allowed by the order of 3-1-1989. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated with all monetary and other service benefits. It is against this order that the present appeal is preferred. The honourable Supreme Court held that we are of the opinion that so far as the present case is concerned the allegation is in re...

Ans: Ranjit Thakur v. Union Of India And Others ,Supreme Court Of India, Oct 15, 1987 Appellant, Ranjit Thakur, joined the Armed Services on September 7, 1972, and was, at the relevant time, a Signalman in “4 Corps Operating Signal Regiment”. Apparently, appellant had not commended himself well to Respondent 4, who was the commanding officer of the regiment. On March 29, 1985, appellant was already serving out a sentence of 28 days' rigorous imprisonment imposed on him for violating the norms for presenting representations to higher officers. Appellant is stated to have sent representation complaining ill-treatment at the hands of Respondent 4 directly to the higher officers. Appellant was punished for that by Respondent 4. Army Act Section 41(2) Disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer In that he at 15.30 hrs. on May 29, 1985 when ordered by JC 106251-P Sub Ram Singh, the Orderly Officer of the same Regiment to eat his food, did not do so. To try this offence a su...

Ans:  Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya vs Commissioner Of Police Delhi & Ors on 16 March, 2004. The appellant was recruited as a Constable in Delhi Police. While undergoing the prescribed training, the appellant fell down on the parade ground on 07.10.1994. Thereupon, he was sent to police dispensary as ordered by the Chief Drill Inspector of the parade. Since his condition did not improve, his relative took him to his home town in Gwalior. He remained under treatment of Government Doctors there and sent applications for leave on medical grounds supported with the medical certificates from competent medical authorities in accordance with the leave rules. The competent police authority passed an order on 16.1.1995 sanctioning leave without pay for the period of his illness from 7.10.1994 to 14.12.1994 as no other leave was due to him. According to the appellant since the competent authority had granted the leave, the question of issuing any charge sheet subsequently for unauthorised absenc...

Ans:  B.S. Hari Commandant vs Union Of India on 13 April, 2023 The Supreme Court on Thursday(April 13) set aside the judgement and the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which upheld the conviction of an Ex-Commandant of BSF under various provisions of BSF Act and NDPS Act, on the ground that there was no direct and cogent evidence against him. The division bench of Justice Krishna Murari as well as Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah noted that in the absence of direct and cogent evidence against the appellant, even if the GSFC was convinced of the appellant’s guilt, the punishment handed out was too harsh, paying heed that the appellant would, even then, be a first-time delinquent, and not a habitual offender. Arguendo, that there be some resemblance of truth in the allegations, the punishment meted out, in our considered view, was disproportionate.” Thus, the honourable Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court as well as t...

Ans:  Ex. Gnr Laxmanram Poonia (Dead) vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 2017. The Appellant was enrolled in the Indian Army. It was the case of the Appellant that on the eve of Festival, he was overburdened with work due to scarcity of staff. Due to continuous restless duty hours for several days, he suffered hypertension resulting in lack of sleep and hunger. Ultimately, he requested the Commanding Officer of his Unit to sanction him leave considering his critical condition. However, instead of granting leave, the Commanding Officer got him admitted in 174 Military Hospital on 11.11.2007, acknowledging the critical condition of the Appellant. The Doctor diagnosed the Appellant to be suffering from acute schizophrenia like psychotic disorder. The Appellant was discharged from 174 Military Hospital on 14.03.2008. Thereafter, he was shifted to Military Hospital Chandimandir and was admitted to psychiatric ward on 28.08.2008. He was subjected to a Military Board held at 174 ...

Ans:  S. Muthu Kumaran v. Union Of India And Others Supreme Court Of India, January 17, 2017. In the above citation , the appellant was alleged of fraudulent recruitment racket but he denied and obtained illegal gratification in lieu of same.  The Appellant was served with a show cause notice alongwith a copy of his confessional statement. The Appellant denied the allegations made against him in the show cause notice and submitted it to the concerned authority. The services of the Appellant was terminated. Challenging the termination order, the Appellant filed an application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 before the Tribunal. Even when the matter was pending before the Tribunal, the Appellant filed petition before the High Court. The High Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the Appellant to file representation before the concerned authority. However, the Appellant did not prefer any representation before the concerned authority thereof....