Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 651
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
K. S. Sahu – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11287 of 2013
Decided on : 05-08-2022
For the Appellant :Mahabir Singh, Deepak Goel, Vipin Kumar, Kamal Kr. Pande, Urvashi Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent:Aishwarya Bhati, Ruchi Kohli, Archana Pathak Dave, Rajan Kr. Chourasia, Shagun Thakur, Manisha Chava, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Reversion – Subjective satisfaction of competent authority which is based on material on record, is not amenable to interference by Court in ordinary course.
Headnote:
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – Section 14 – Navy (Discipline and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations, 1965 – Regulation 216 – Withdrawal from INA and reversion to original rank and branch as a sailor without loss of seniority – Appellant has not been dismissed from service – His service as a sailor was protected and even his seniority was protected – Withdrawal did not affect his service in any manner – Appellant accepted that he was in possession of objectionable articles including pornographic magazines – While assessing whether appellant was found deficient in basic character and other officer like qualities, conduct appellant, which is reflected from Inquiry Report, two show cause notices and his own statement, has been taken into consideration – Subjective satisfaction of competent authority is on the basis of material on record – There was material on record to come to a subjective satisfaction that appellant was deficient in basic character and officer like qualities – Two show cause notices were served upon appellant before taking action of withdrawal – While taking action of withdrawal, competent authority has ensured that service of appellant with Navy is not affected in any manner and even Degree of University of Goa has been conferred on appellant – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 15, 16, 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
This is an appeal under Section 31 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 by which, an exception has been taken to the judgment and order dated 27th August 2013 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi.
Findings of Court:
At least on two occasions, the appellant was put to notice and warning and was given an opportunity to explain his conduct. While taking action of withdrawal of the appellant from training, competent authority made the assessment of the performance and conduct of the cadet in INA during his training.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Abhay S. Oka, J.
This is an appeal under Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 by which, an exception has been taken to the judgment and order dated 27th August 2013 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (for short, “the said Tribunal”), Regional Bench, Kochi.
2. On 31st July 2002, the appellant joined Indian Navy as a sailor. The appellant was selected by the Service Selection Board to undergo training for being commissioned as an officer. He underwent initial training at INS Mandovi at Goa for a period of two years from 7th July 2002. On 21st June 2009, he was sent for training at Indian Naval Academy, Ezhimala (for short, “INA”). He was required to complete 5th and 6th terms of training at INA. On 1st December 2010, a communication was issued by the Integrated Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence (Navy), Government of India informing that the competent authority has accorded approval to the withdrawal of the appellant from INA and revert him to his original rank and branch as a sailor without loss of seniority. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant filed Original Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 before the said Tribunal. By the impugned judgment, the Original Application has been dismissed.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT
3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out the order dated 27th August 2013, passed by the said Tribunal by which leave has been granted under sub- Section (1) of Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 as three questions of general public importance were involved. The first question was whether the appellant who was a service cadet could be withdrawn from the course in INA without following the principles of natural justice. The second question was whether Regulation 216 of the Navy (Discipline and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations, 1965 (for short “the said Regulations”) could be invoked against a service cadet. The third question was whether, after completion of the course and receipt of the certificates, the applicant could be withdrawn.
4. The learned senior counsel submitted that the withdrawal of the appellant from the course is contrary to the Rules in the Enclosure1 of Naval Headquarters' letter dated 11th November 1988, which provide that the final authority for withdrawal of a cadet from the course vests in the Government. He pointed out that in this case, the decision is made not by the Government, but by a subordinate authority. He also pointed out that the same enclosure provides that a cadet is to be dispatched home on leave, pending the acceptance of the proposal for his withdrawal if it is made on the eve of summer/winter break. He submitted that even after the recommendation was made for the withdrawal of the appellant from the course, he was not sent home but was permitted to pursue the course. He also pointed out that the Naval authorities have contended on one hand that the withdrawal is on the disciplinary grounds and on the other hand, the withdrawal is on the ground that the appellant was found deficient in basic character and other officer like qualities and graded as 'unacceptable' in spite of written warnings. He submitted that both the grounds are distinct grounds. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the officers of the Navy have victimised the appellant due to the fact that he comes from a very poor family and his father is working as a carpenter in a Naval establishment. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the appellant was influenced to sign the documents accepting his mistake under a threat of disciplinary action. He submitted that the entire theory of recovery of articles from the appellant's room is very doubtful. He submitted that the Navy forwarded an invitation to the appellant's parents for attending the valedictory ceremony on 6th December 2010 and they were never informed about the withdrawal of the appellant. The learned senior counsel
