1. Recruitment into Army Medical Corps — False declaration regarding pending criminal proceedings in enrolment form — Discharge under Army Rule 13(3)(IV). (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 249
1997(2) Supreme 441
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. Agrawal and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.
Sanjay Kumar Bajpai -Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7627 of 1994
Decided on 12-2-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : P.P. Malhotra, Advocate.
The court held that a presumption of regularity applies to official acts, such as filling an enrolment form under the Army Act. A candidate who signs a declaration of truth cannot disown the answers; false statements regarding pending criminal cases during enrolment justify discharge from service.
Headnote:ARMY SERVICE-Order discharging appellant from service as M.E.R. (Technical)/Nursing Assistant in Army Medical Corps under Army Rule 13(3)(iv)-Challenged-Giving false answers to questions put to him regarding involvement in any civil case at the time of enrolment-Appellant s case that answers recorded against questions in enrolment form were not based on answers given by him-Rejected-Having appended his signatures at the end of form, it is not open to appellant to dis-own the same-Filling of enrolment form was an official act required to be performed u/s 13 Army Act-Presumption about regularity of such official act can be drawn. (Army Act-Section 13; Army Rules-Rule 13(3)(iv). (Para 7)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to discharge based on claims that enrolment form was signed blank, show-cause notice was not served, and discrepancies existed in respondent affidavits. (Para 4 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Presumption of regularity applies to official acts under Section 13 Army Act; signed declarations cannot be disowned; substantive consistency in questions outweighs drafting errors in affidavits. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. A signed declaration in an official enrolment form performed under statutory duty carries a presumption of regularity and binds the declarant. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment upholding discharge from service affirmed. (Para 11 )
6. Does a presumption of regularity apply to the filling of an enrolment form under the Army Act?
Yes. The court held that the filling of an enrolment form is an official act performed under Section 13 of the Army Act, and a presumption about the regularity of such an official act can be drawn. (Para 7 )
7. Can a candidate disown answers in an enrolment form if they signed a declaration of truth?
No. Having appended a signature to a declaration stating that the answers provided in the form are true, the candidate cannot later disown the statements contained therein. (Para 6 , 7 )
8. Does a discrepancy in the wording of a question in a counter-affidavit vitiate a discharge order if the substance remains the same?
No. If the substance of the question is the same as the one in the official record, a discrepancy caused by a lack of care in preparing the affidavit is not a ground for vitiating the order. (Para 8 )
9. Is the non-service of a show-cause notice fatal to a discharge order if the employee provided an explanation that was considered?
Not necessarily. If the employee submitted an explanation in response to the notice and that explanation was considered by authorities before the order was passed, the specific proof of service is not of much consequence. (Para 9 )
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Allabahad High Court (Lucknow Bench) dated September 13, 1993 whereby Writ Petition No. 10117 of 1989 filed by the appellant has been dismissed. In the said Writ Petition the appellant had assailed the validity of the order dated September 12, 1989 discharging him from service as M.E.R. (Technical)/Nursing Assistant in the Army Medical Corps.
2. The appellant appeared in M.E.R. (Technical) Examination conducted by Headquarters Recruiting Zone, Lucknow on January 24, 1988. On the basis of the result of the said examination he was selected for recruitment as M.E.R. (Tech.)/Nursing Assistant in the Army Medical College. He was enrolled as M.E.R. (Technical)/Nursing Assistant on February 29, 1988. At the time of enrolment a form is required to be filled on the basis of the answers to questions put to the person seeking enrolment. For the purpose of enrolment the enrolment form as prescribed by the relevant rules was filled. It is not disputed that at the time of his enrolment the appellant was being prosecuted before the Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution Control), U.P., Lucknow for offences under Sections 147, 452, 324 and 323 I.P.C. The case of the respondents is that at the time of enrolment the appellant was asked the following question :-
"Q. No. (8) : Have you ever been imprisoned by the civil power or are you under trial for any offence or has any complaint or report been made against you to the Magistrate or Police for any offence ? If so, give details."
3. In the enrolment form it is recorded that the said question was answered by the appellant by the word "No". The enrolment form of the appellant was sent for verification to the District Magistrate, Lucknow. After verification the District Magistrate, Lucknow, by his letter dated December 21, 1988, informed the A.M.C. Centre and School about the pendency of the criminal case against the appellant. On receipt of the said communication from the District Magistrate, Lucknow, a show-cause notice dated May 20, 1989 was issued to the appellant whereby he was informed that it had come to the notice that the appellant was involved in a civil case and he had deliberately given false answers to the questions put to him by the enrolling officer regarding involvement in any civil case at the time of enrolment. The appellant was required to show cause why he should not be discharged from service on account of the same. The appellant in his communication dated May 23, 1989 admitted about the pendency of the criminal case against him but asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the same. After considering the said communication of the appellant the impugned order dated September 12, 1989 was passed whereby he was discharged from service under Army Rule 13(3) (IV) as his service was no longer required. It appears that the order dated September 12, 1989 refers to clause (IV) of the table appended below Rule 13 of the Army Rules which contains three clauses. Clause (IV) of the said table enables discharge of a person enrolled under the Act but not attested who is considered as unlikely to become an efficient soldier and whose services are no longer required.
4. The case of the appellant is that the enrolment form was not filled on the basis of the answers given by him to questions put to him at the time of enrolment and that the signatures of the appellant were obtained on the blank enrolment form and the same was filled later and, therefore, the appellant cannot be held responsible for any statement contained in the enrolment form and the action that has been taken against him on the basis of the statement contained in the enrolment form cannot be held to be valid. It has also been asserted by the appellant that the show cause notice dated May 20, 1989 was never served on him and only an oral query was made by the Commanding Officer and that in response to the said query he had sent the communication dated May 23, 1989 gi
