Q. Describe the citation of S. Muthu Kumaran v. Union Of India And Others Supreme Court Of India, January 17, 2017 ?

Ans: 

S. Muthu Kumaran v. Union Of India And Others Supreme Court Of India, January 17, 2017.

The Appellant was alleged to have been involved in fraudulent recruitment racket and obtaining illegal gratification in lieu of the 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 that the concerned authority had already held an inquiry in this regard and after recording the evidence had concluded that no charges are proved against the Appellant. The Appellant was served with a subsequent show cause notice asking him to submit additional reply, if any. The Appellant submitted additional reply, stating that he was forced to give self incriminating confessional statement which deserves to be discarded on account of being false and made under coercion. The officiating officer had opined in favour of dropping the proceedings against the Appellant. 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. The Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's application as being devoid of any merit. The miscellaneous application filed by the Appellant seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was also dismissed. Aggrieved thereof, the Appellant filed an appeal.

The honourable Supreme Court held, while allowing the appeal partly:

(i) After having rightly appraised the evidence on record and the law dealing with the subject, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the Appellant, thereby affirming his dismissal from service. There was no perversity in the findings of the Tribunal. However, with regard to infliction of punishment of dismissal from service, the Tribunal could have kept in view the long service of the Appellant. 

(ii) When the dismissal order was passed in case of the Appellant, the General Officer Commanding could have taken into account the unblemished service record of the Appellant and his long service. If an order of discharge would have been inflicted against the Appellant, he still would have been restricted from continuing in service and at the same time, the Appellant, who had served diligently for more than 17 years, would have been granted with the benefits accrued on his service rendered so far. 

(iii) The dismissal order passed against the Appellant was within the powers of the concerned authorities. However, as far as the dismissal from service is concerned, it is an extreme punishment imposed against the Appellant. The Appellant has to thrive in civil life by doing an appropriate job suitable to his qualification. The punishment of dismissal was modified from service into discharge from service.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Describe the citation of Chandra Kumar v. Union of India in brief ?

Ans: The larger issue before the Bench was whether the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal set up under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 would be amenable to challenge before High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It will be noted that when the concept of tribunalisation was upheld in L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India  that the Court had unequivocally opined that the orders passed by the Tribunals would be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of Indian Constitution.  x
Read more

Q: Describe the citation of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India ?

Ans: Learned counsels fortified their arguments on the basis of observations in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India ,  more specifically in paragraph 42, where the Supreme Court held that the High Courts, under Article 226, have the power of judicial review even in respect of courts martial and the High Courts can grant appropriate relief if the said proceedings have resulted in denial of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or if the said proceedings suffer from a jurisdictional error or any error of law apparent on the face of the record. x
Read more

Q: Elaborate the relevancy of citation of Ranjit Thakur v. Union Of India And Others ,Supreme Court Of India, Oct 15, 1987 with present case ?

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...
Read more