IMPORTANT POINT
Unblemished service record and long service are relevant factors to be considered while imposing punishment.

JUDGMENT

R. Banumathi, J.

The present appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 assailing the judgment and order dated 06.05.2016 in O.A. No. 96 of 2011, as well as order dated 30.05.2016 in M.A. No.320 of 2016 in O.A. No.96 of 2011 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Jaipur, dismissing the original application filed by the appellant seeking reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

2. In a nutshell, the facts leading to present appeal are as follows. The appellant was inducted in the Indian Army on 26.04.1994 on the post of Havildar/Clerk. The appellant is alleged to have been involved in fraudulent recruitment racket and obtaining illegal gratification in lieu of the same, during his posting in Jammu and Kashmir in the month of September, 2006. Accordingly, the appellant was served with a show cause notice dated 07.06.2010 alongwith a copy of his confessional statement dated 28.09.2006 asking as to why action be not taken against him. The confessional statement of the appellant was made in his own handwriting and bore his signatures too. In his confessional statement, the appellant is said to have admitted that in collusion with Dafadar/Clerk KNS Rao of ARO Jammu and others he had fraudulently enrolled around six candidates and obtained illegal gratifications from them in lieu of the same.

3. The appellant, vide his reply dated 05.07.2010 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 dated 19.12.2010 asking him to submit additional reply, if any. The appellant submitted additional reply dated 27.12.2010, 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. In his opinion dated 26.12.2010, the officiating Commanding Officer submitted that the appellant had already been acquitted from the concerned case by the competent authority and thus, re-opening of the case on hearsay evidence of a proven culprit, Dfr/Clk KNS Rao is unwarranted.

4. Based on the materials available against the appellant, inclusive of the reply and additional reply of the appellant, the General Officer Commanding, 26 Infantry Division terminated the services of the appellant vide order dated 18.02.2011 under Section 20(3) of the Army Act read with Rule 17 of the Army Rules. Challenging the termination order dated 18.02.2011, the appellant filed an application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 before the Armed Forces Tribunal on 02.06.2011. The matter was listed for admission on 03.06.2011. Even when the matter was pending before the Tribunal, the appellant filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5999 of 2011 before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. Vide order dated 08.07.2011, 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.

5. The Tribunal took note of the entire facts and circumstances, more specifically, the retracted confessional statement of the appellant and vide its order dated 06.05.2016, dismissed the appellant’s application as being devoid of any merit. The Miscellaneous Application (M.A. No.320 of 2016 in O.A. No.96 of 2011) filed by the appellant seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 31 of the Act was also dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2016. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant approached this forum by filing an appeal under Section 30 of the AFT Act.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal ough