Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a discharged service member to reinstatement, as the standards of proof differ between criminal and civil proceedings.

ORDER :

This writ petition challenges the order dated 21^st March, 2025 in O.A. No.64/2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jaipur.

2. Ms. Manjeet Kaur, the learned counsel for the respondents, appearing on advance copy has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ petition.

3. At the outset, we may indicate that the petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.27/2012 seeking reinstatement in service. However, the prayer for reinstatement was not granted by the Tribunal and the Original Application was dismissed vide order dated 16^th August, 2022.

4. In the second round, the petitioner has come with a prayer for grant of pension and back wages in view of his acquittal in the criminal case on 18^th November, 2011.

5. The petitioner was enrolled in Army on 28^th April, 1994 and he was arrested by the Civil Police on 14^th August, 1995 while he was undergoing military training. In the crime registered vide F.I.R. No.61/91 at Police Station Neem Ka Thana, district Sikar, allegation of committing offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code was levelled. Consequent upon his arrest by the Civil Police, the petitioner was discharged from service on the ground of "Unlikely to become an Efficient Soldier" under Rule 13(3) IV of Army Rules, 1954 which reads as under:

".......13. Authorities empowered to authorize discharge.

(1) Each of the authorities specified in column 3 of the Table below shall be the competent authority to discharge service person subject to the Act specified in column 1 thereof on the grounds specified in column 2.

(2) Any power conferred by this rule on any of the aforesaid authorities shall also be exercisable by any other authority superior to it.

(2A) Where the central Government or the Chief of the Army Staff decides that any persons subject to the Act should be discharged from service, either unconditionally or on the fulfillment of certain specified conditions, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the Commanding Officer shall also be the competent authority to discharge from service such person or any person belonging to such class in accordance with the said decision.

(3) In the table “commanding officer” means the officer commanding the corps or department to which the person to be discharged belongings except that to the case of junior commissioned officer and warrant officer of the Special Medical Section of the Army Medical Corps, the “commanding officer” means the Director of the Medical Services, Army, and in the case of junior commissioned officer and warrant officers of Remounts, Veterinary and Farms Corps, the “Commanding officer” means the Director Remounts, Veterinary and Farms.....…"

6. The Tribunal has held as under:

“10. Moreover, it needs no emphasis that the discipline is the backbone of the Armed Forces, which has to be maintained at all costs to maintain its operational efficiency by having men of absolute character to defend the country as mandated by the Constitution of India. The Indian Army cannot afford to have such personnel on its roll who have been found to be criminals and accused of serious criminal offences under the IPC. Though the Applicant was acquitted later by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sikar (Rajasthan) after 20 years of the commission of the offence in 1991, such persons may jeopardise the strength of an organization especially the Indian Army, which takes pride in being a disciplined force.

11. In the present case, the Applicant did not disclose the vital fact that he has been arraigned in a case under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 149 of IPC before being enrolled in the Army on 28.04.1994. The same came to the knowledge of Army authorities when an Inspector of Police came to Training Centre and arrested the Applicant on 14.08.1995. Therefore, he was liable to be dealt with under Rule 44 of Army Rules, 1954. Since the Applicant did not disclose his involvement in criminal case to the Ar