Back
2019 Supreme(All) 381
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Yashwant Varma, J.
Rajat Aren – Appellant
Vs.
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ - A No. 42949 of 2017
Decided On : 26-03-2019
Prabhakar Awasthi, Adv., Rajat Aren, Adv., Satish Kumar Rai, Adv.
Headnote:
The petitioner, a Gentleman Cadet (GC) at the Officers Training Academy (OTA), Chennai, challenged the orders of relegation and withdrawal passed against him by the respondents. The petitioner was initially relegated for missing more than 42 days of training on medical grounds, and again for failing to achieve the basic minimum standards in physical training. He was subsequently withdrawn from the Academy on disciplinary grounds. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the orders of relegation and withdrawal, and the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the petition and substituted the punishment of withdrawal with relegation. The respondents accepted the decision of the Court and the petitioner was reinstated in the Academy. However, during the Senior Term, the petitioner accumulated more than 42 restrictions, which resulted in a second relegation and a consequent second withdrawal. The petitioner challenged the impugned orders on the grounds of mala fides, discriminatory treatment, and violation of the Scales of Punishment as set forth in Appendix F of the Administrative Instructions (AI).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Gentleman Cadet (GC) at the Officers Training Academy (OTA), Chennai, challenged the orders of relegation and withdrawal passed against him by the respondents. The petitioner was initially relegated for missing more than 42 days of training on medical grounds, and again for failing to achieve the basic minimum standards in physical training. He was subsequently withdrawn from the Academy on disciplinary grounds. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the orders of relegation and withdrawal, and the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the petition and substituted the punishment of withdrawal with relegation. The respondents accepted the decision of the Court and the petitioner was reinstated in the Academy. However, during the Senior Term, the petitioner accumulated more than 42 restrictions, which resulted in a second relegation and a consequent second withdrawal. The petitioner challenged the impugned orders on the grounds of mala fides, discriminatory treatment, and violation of the Scales of Punishment as set forth in Appendix F of the Administrative Instructions (AI).
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the allegations of mala fides were levelled irresponsibly and were not established. The Court also found that the petitioner was aware of the imposition of relegations and the violations for which they were meted out. The Court further found that the respondents failed to justify the imposition of relegations in violation of the Scales of Punishment as set forth in Appendix F. However, the Court also found that the order of relegation rested on the twin pillars of accumulation of relegations and the admitted failure of the petitioner to successfully complete mandatory physical tasks. Consequently, the Court found that the impugned action was liable to be upheld in light of Para 60 (e) of the AI. The Court also found that the petitioner had willfully breached the undertaking given to the Court and had belied the hope and belief that he would reform and improve. The Court concluded that the action of the respondents was justified and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the orders of relegation and withdrawal passed against the petitioner were mala fide? 2. Whether the petitioner was discriminated against? 3. Whether the respondents violated the Scales of Punishment as set forth in Appendix F of the AI? 4. Whether the petitioner breached the undertaking given to the Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the allegations of mala fides were levelled irresponsibly and were not established. 2. The Court held that there was no evidence to support the petitioner's claim of discriminatory treatment. 3. The Court held that the respondents failed to justify the imposition of relegations in violation of the Scales of Punishment as set forth in Appendix F. 4. The Court held that the petitioner had willfully breached the undertaking given to the Court.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition.
Yashwant Varma, J.
A. A BRIEF OUTLINE
Heard the petitioner who has appeared in person and Sri S.K. Rai, learned counsel who has appeared for the respondents 1 to 7.
2. Initially when the writ petition was instituted the petitioner had chosen to implead two Platoon Commanders of the Officers Training Academy, Chennai [hereinafter referred to as the "Academy"] as party respondents by name. However, pursuant to permission sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner appearing then, these two respondents were deleted from the array of parties as recorded in the order dated 14 September 2017. The instant writ petition had been preferred originally seeking the following reliefs:
"(iii). "Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records of the case and to quash the relegation dated 07.08.2017 (not communicated to the petitioner), show cause notice dated 08.08.2017, 27.07.2017 and the order dated 11.08.2017 whereby the petitioner has been sent on leave as also the order dated 31.08.2017 whereby the request of the petitioner for reconsideration of relegation has been rejected.
(iv). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to commission the petitioner w.e.f. 09.09.2017 which is the date for passing out parade."
3. By an amendment which was allowed by the Court on 12 October 2018, the following two additional reliefs were incorporated:
"iv-A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records of the case and to quash the order dated 21.07.2017 passed by respondent no.4(Annexure No.14 to the Writ Petition) as also the sending of petitioner on leave through leave certificates w.e.f. 11.08.2017 also issued by respondent no.4 (Annexure No.19 to the writ petition), withdrawal order from commissioning training at O.T.A. Chennai dated 20.12.2017 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure No.RA-1) and the order dated 21.12.2017 whereby the respondent no.4 after approval of withdrawal has recalled the petitioner for necessary clearance accordingly (Annexure No.RA.-1).
iv-b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay full salary in accordance with law from 09.09.2017 which is the date of commissioning of the petitioner as an Officer of the Indian Army."
4. The challenge essentially is to an order of relegation and a consequential order of withdrawal passed by the respondents. On 27 July 2017 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain why he be not relegated consequent to accumulation of more than 42 restrictions. The notice further put the petitioner to caution by recording that since the proposed relegation would result in a second relegation in the same training term and the third during the petitioner's complete stay at the Academy it would in turn result in his withdrawal. The petitioner submitted a reply of the same date whereafter the Commandant of the Academy drew up a comprehensive report with respect to the stay of the petitioner at the Academy and also encapsulating the various disciplinary measures which had been taken against him during his training term. This report and recommendation drawn on 28 July 2017 recommended the relegation of the petitioner and was forwarded to the competent authority. The recommendation so framed was accepted and the competent authority approved the proposed relegation on 31 July 2017.
5. Consequent to the aforesaid, a second show cause notice dated 8 August 2017 came to be issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he be not withdrawn from the Academy on account of a second relegation in the same training term excluding an earlier relegation on medical grounds and thus in effect being his third relegation during his complete stay at the Academy. The petitioner submitted a reply to this notice on
