1. Army enrollment under Unit Headquarters Quota — Allegation of fraudulent relationship certificates — Dismissal from service — Challenge to Armed Forces Tribunal order. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 110
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
No.2809759H Ex-Recruit Babanna Machched – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 644-645 Of 2017 With Civil Appeal Nos. 652-653 Of 2017, Civil Appeal Nos. 642-643 Of 2017 & Civil Appeal Nos. 654-655 Of 2017
Decided On : 09-02-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Suhaskumar Kadam, Adv. For M/S. Black & White Solicitors, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Poornima Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Joseph, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Suhaskumar Kadam, Adv. For M/S. Black & White Solicitors, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Poornima Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Joseph, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Dismissal from service – Discharge/dismissal of appellants from service may be vitiated for non-consideration of specific cases of servicemen.
Headnote:
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – Section 31 – Dismissal from service – Charge of adopting fraudulent means in form of false relationship certificates to procure employment – Appellants have applied as a general category candidate(s) against surplus seats/vacancies remaining unfilled after considering priority/reserved quota for relatives of servicemen/ex-servicemen, etc. – In such a situation, when they have not claimed any enrolment/recruitment on the basis of relationship with servicemen/ex-servicemen, there was no occasion for them to submit any relationship certificate – Appellants have applied under general category and not as relatives of servicemen/ex-servicemen – They have not produced alleged certificate(s) which could be held to be fake – Discharge/dismissal of appellants from service is vitiated for non-consideration of their specific case that they have actually not produced any relationship certificate for selection/recruitment as they never applied in reserved category – Impugned orders of discharge/dismissal set aside – Appellants shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits. (Paras 17, 20, 24 and 27)
Facts of the case:
In these appeals challenge is to common judgment and order of Armed Forces Tribunal, Kochi, dated 6.03.2014, whereby Tribunal has refused to interfere with discharge certificate, dismissing appellants from service for adopting fraudulent means. Consequently, refusing prayer of appellants to reinstate them. Only question for consideration in these appeals is whether appellants had applied and were selected as general category candidates or were placed in any of reserved category.
Findings of Court:
In case at hand, it was not case of respondents ever that vacancies on which appellants have been enrolled/recruited were only supposed to be filled up by relatives of servicemen/ex-servicemen and not by a general category person or that posts advertised were only for alleged reserved category. They never even took any defence based upon newspaper clipping.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants claim recruitment under general category without producing relationship certificates — Respondents contend recruitment was exclusively for relatives and no general category existed. (Para 8 , 12 , 13 )
3. Guidelines permit open category recruitment based on merit — No evidence that appellants produced relationship certificates — Dismissal order failed to consider the appellants' specific plea. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 )
4. An order passed without considering material evidence or a specific plea violates principles of natural justice and is vitiated. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 )
5. Dismissal orders and Tribunal judgment set aside — Appellants to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. (Para 27 , 28 )
6. Can candidates be recruited under the Unit Headquarters Quota in the general category?
Yes. Recruitment guidelines for the Unit Headquarters Quota explicitly provide for an open category where personnel based on merit may be recruited if additional vacancies remain after filling priority quotas for relatives of servicemen or ex-servicemen. (Para 2 , 15 , 16 , 24 )
7. What is the legal effect of an administrative order that fails to consider a material plea or evidence?
An order passed without consideration of material evidence or a specific plea is violative of the principles of natural justice and is considered vitiated. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 24 )
8. Can an authority supplement the reasoning of an impugned order with extraneous material during court proceedings?
No. The validity of an impugned order must be tested based on the reasoning contained within the order itself; authorities are not permitted to supplement that reasoning with extraneous material or affidavits before the court. (Para 22 , 23 )
JUDGMENT :
(Pankaj Mithal, J.)
1. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.
2. Instructions were issued from time to time with regard to enrollment into Army under the Unit Headquarters Quota (UHQ). The instructions as revised upto the year 1978, provided that Regiments/Corps have sanction to enroll 15 per cent of the total yearly demand released by the Additional Directorate of Recruiting to Zonal Recruiting Offices. This percentage was increased to 25 during the year 1981-82 and in March, 1983 this quota was further increased to 50 per cent. Since the Regiments/Corps could not fill up such large number of vacancies, to facilitate the enrollment, priority was provided to certain categories of personnel which included sons and grandsons of servicemen and ex-servicemen; brothers and other near relatives of those killed in battle or died in service; wards who were fully dependent upon servicemen or ex-servicemen; sportsmen of merit, and those for whom there was a special recruitment, e.g., Ladakh Scouts, Cavalry, Gorkha, Para, President Body Guard Regiments etc. It was further provided that Unit Headquarters Quota Enrollment shall give priority to the above categories and in case vacancies for recruitment remain available with Regimental Centre, personnel from open category based on merit may be taken.
3. In the light of the above instructions for recruitment under the Unit Headquarters, a news item was published for the purposes of recruitment inviting applications under the Unit Headquarters Quota. It appears that a large number of candidates including the appellants applied. The appellants were selected and were enrolled in the Army by the Maratha Light Infantry Regimental Centre (‘MLIRC’). After they had put in nearly three years of service, a show cause notice was issued to several of them alleging that they had obtained enrollment in the Army either on the basis of the fake sports person certificate or on the basis of false relationship certificate. On consideration of the reply of those persons, the services of about 52 of them were terminated. However, after some litigation, candidates belonging to the category of sportsmen of merit, were all reinstated. In regard to the fake relationship certificate, services of about 20 persons including the appellants were terminated out of which 4 persons are before this Court.
4. The case of all the four appellants is identical and is based upon similar facts and as such the appeals of all four of them were taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
5. In these appeals the challenge is to the common judgment and order of the Armed Forces Tribunal 1[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’], Kochi, dated 6.03.2014, whereby the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the discharge certificate, dismissing the appellants from service for adopting fraudulent means. Consequently, refusing the prayer of the appellants to reinstate them.
6. Notice in these appeals were issued only because the appellants before this Court wished to press that the appellants had never applied for enrollment in any reserved category. This was done on the statement of the counsel for the appellants which stands recorded in the order dated 08.03.2016.
7. In view of the above factual position, the only question for our consideration in these appeals is whether the appellants had applied and were selected as general category candidates or were placed in any of the reserved category.
8. Briefly stated, after the appellants were enrolled/recruited in the Army, they were served with identical show cause notices contending that they have been enrolled in the Army by producing false relationship certificates and the documents produced by them on verification have been found to be fake/forged. Thus, calling upon them as to why they should not be dismissed from service. In response to the show cause notice, all the appellants submitted their response on identical lines that th
