IMPORTANT POINT
A Member of Armed Forces cannot take his duty lightly and abstain from duty at his will.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed on April 30, 2014 by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Chandigarh, Regional Bench at Chandimandir whereby, the discharge of the appellant on account of seven red ink entries during his 11 years 9 months and 15 days service was not found to be unjustified.

2. The appellant was served with a show-cause notice on September 22, 2004 that the appellant has proved himself undesirable and retention in service is not considered suitable, in respect of seven punishments: two in the year 1995; one in the year 1998; two in the year 2000 and two in the year 2004. The details of his punishments seven times are as under:-

3. In response to such show-cause notice, the reply of the appellant was that he did not have any other source to look after the welfare of his children and that he has committed a blunder and mistakes due to his family problems and that he would not commit a single mistake again.

4. After considering the reply filed, the reasons for discharge have been recorded by General Officer Commanding 24 Infantry Division on November 26, 2004 wherein, it has been recorded that the appellant is habitual offender, therefore, he be discharged from service.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgment of this Court in Veerendra Kumar Dubey vs. Chief of Army Staff and Others, (2016) 2 SCC 627 wherein, it has been held that the red ink entries by itself would not be sufficient to discharge any person, but the Commanding Officer is required to conduct an enquiry as required under para 5(a) of the Army Instructions dated December 28, 1988. The relevant part is reproduced below:

“Addl. Director General Personal Services (PS-2) Army Headquarters, Room No. Sena Bhawan’s Wing, DHQ PO New Delhi-110011

A/21210/159/ps-4(C)

28 Dec. 1988

Headquarters, Southern Command, Pune Eastern Command, Calcutta Western Command, Chandimandir Central Command, Lucknow Northern Command, C/o 56 APO

Procedure for dismissal/discharge of undesirable JCOs/WOs/OR:

xx xx xx

5. xx xx xx

(a) Preliminary Enquiry - Before recommending discharge or dismissal of an individual the authority concerned will ensure:

(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.”

6. We do not find any merit in the argument that since no regular enquiry was conducted by the Commanding Officer as held by this Court in Veerendra Kumar Dubey, therefore, the punishment is not sustainable. This Court in the aforesaid judgment held as under:

“10. The Government has, as rightly mentioned by the learned counsel for the appellant, stipulated not only a show-cause notice which is an indispensable part of the requirement of the Rule but also an impartial enquiry into the allegations against him in which he is entitled to an adequate opportunity of putting up his defence and adducing evidence in support thereof. More importantly, certain inbuilt safeguards against discharge from service based on four red ink entries have also been prescribed. The first and foremost is an unequivocal declaration that mere award of four red ink entries to an individual does not make his discharge mandatory