ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR (CIRCUIT BENCH AT JODHPUR)

S/6.

OA No 121/2023 with MA No 194/2023 No-2695002X Ex Gdr Balram Jakhar, S/o Late Shri Narayan Ram, R/o Vill-Baori, Tehsil-Baori, District-Jodhpur (Raj) .… Applicant Versus

1. The Union of India, through the Chief of the Army Staff, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi

2. The PCDA (P), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad (UP)

3. The Senior Record Officer, The Grenadiers Records, …. Respondents Jabalpur (MP) – 901124 For Applicant : Mr Jog Singh Bhati, Advocate For Respondents : Dr. Yuvraj Singh, Advocate CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MR SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)

O R D E R

02.05.2025

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA, praying for directing the Respondents to quash and set aside his discharge from service and grant him pension and other pensionary benefits along with interest on arrears @ 18% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 13.11.1999. While in service, he was awarded more than four red ink punishments for which he was issued Show Cause Notice. It has been alleged that though he replied to the Show Cause Notice but without considering the same, he was discharged from Service on 18.06.2010, ignoring the fact that he had rendered 10 years, 7 months and 6 days of service and was not granted any pensionary benefits. The Applicant preferred an Appeal on 08.08.2018 against his illegal discharge from service praying for reinstatement in service but the same was not considered by the Respondents. The Applicant placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dt 15.12.2016 in Civil Appeal No 12179-12180 (arising out of SLP (D) No 34132/2013) in the case of Vijay Shankar Mishra Vs UOI & Ors and judgment dt 20.09.2019 in Civil Appeal Nos 7452-7453 of 2019 (Diary No 40813/2015) in the case of Narain Singh Vs UOI & Ors and contested that mere infliction of four red ink entries to a person has no statutory sanction to discharge him from service and the length of service rendered by a person, postings at hard stations and difficult living conditions should also be considered before discharging a person from service and the Respondents did not consider these aspects before discharging him from service. The Applicant availed all the remedies available to him, but his grievances were not redressed, therefore, he filed the present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and while not disputing the basic facts, they have submitted that in a brief service of 10 years, 7 months and 6 days of service (including 10 days of non-qualifying service), the Applicant earned six red ink entries and one black ink entry punishments. The Applicant was a habitual offender and despite granting him sufficient opportunities, he did not improve his conduct. After award of five red ink entries under various sections of Army Act, 1950, the Applicant was issued a Show Cause Notice by the Competent Authority, Commander 19 Inf Bde vide letter dt 01.06.2010 to explain as to why he should not be discharged from Service under Rule 13(3) III (v) of Army Rules, 1954 (Annexure R/2), which he replied on 09.06.2010 (Annexure R/3). After carefully analyzing the reply to the Show Cause Notice submitted by the Applicant, the Applicant was ordered to be discharged from Service and, accordingly, he was discharged from Service on 18.06.2010 under Rule 13(3) III (v) of Army Rules, 1954 being “Service No Longer Required”. The Applicant had rendered 10 years, 7 months and 6 days of qualifying service, including 10 days of non-qualifying service (NQS). After 9 years of his discharge from Service, the Applicant submitted petition dt 17.05.2019 for reinstatement in service, which was disposed off by the Officer-in-Charge Records through a Reasoned Speaking Order dt 08.11.2019 (Annexure R/4). The Respondents have submitted that in terms of Para 132 of Pension Regulations for the Army,