$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 19.03.2026 Judgment delivered on: 20.04.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 20.04.2026 + W.P.(C) 1181/2025 DHARAMVIR SINGH .....Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case For the Petitioner : Petitioner (in person)

For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Gupta, SPC and Major Kanika Sharma Army CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

JUDGMENT

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, challenging the order dated 09.10.2024, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal [the ‘Tribunal’] in the Original Application 1376/2023 [‘the O.A.’] and the order dated 30.08.2024 [‘impugned order’] and the discharge order dated 11.01.2022 [‘impugned discharge order’] dispensing with the services of the Petitioner.

2. The Petitioner joined the Indian Army as a Sepoy in the EME Branch on 15.03.2011. The Petitioner was found to be suffering from Primary Hypertension vide Medical Board conducted on 13.06.2020, and on recategorization on 25.01.2021, the Petitioner was diagnosed with 30%

disability.

3. Thereafter, the Petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice [‘SCN’] dated 24.11.2021, proposing to terminate the Petitioner’s service for the disability incurred and granting the Petitioner 24 hours to submit his reply. Thereto, the Petitioner submitted his reply on 25.11.2021, requesting, inter alia, his retention in the service under the prevailing medical category. 4. It is stated that, however, the Petitioner was made to sign Appx ‘DE’ on 25.11.2021, the same day as his reply to the SCN, during the process of raising a report on JCOs/OR downgraded to Permanent Low Medical Category. The report was signed by the Dean, FEME, MCEME, Secunderabad, on 30.11.2021. Pursuant thereto, the impugned discharge order dated 11.01.2022 was issued, discharging the Petitioner from the service under Rule 13(3), Clause III (iii)(a)(i).

5. The Senior Officer of EME Record Office fixed the date of discharge on 31.05.2022. The Petitioner preferred the O.A. before the Tribunal, challenging the impugned discharge order dated 11.01.2022 and praying for reinstatement in service. However, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A vide order dated 30.08.2024.

6. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an application to review its judgment; however, the Tribunal dismissed the said application vide order dated 09.10.2024, whilst stating that the Petitioner should avail remedy before the appropriate forum.

7. In these facts, the Petitioner has preferred the present petition.

Submissions by the Petitioner

8. The Petitioner states that the Respondents suo moto initiated his discharge contrary to the mandatory Rule 13(3) Clause III(iii)(a)(i) of the Army Rules 1954 [the ‘Army Rules’], as in the instant case the discharge was contemplated without the conduct of Release Medical Board which is sine qua non for initiating the discharge or invalidment from service, which is axiomatic from the SCN where there is no such mention of Release Medical Board.

8.1. He states that he had not completed the minimum qualifying service to earn the pensionary benefits, which is fifteen [15] years, and in order to dispense with the services of such person on medical disability, the Medical Board is sine qua non.

8.2. He states that vide the recategorization dated 25.01.2021, he was found to be suffering from Primary Hypertension [LMC, Low Medical Category Permanent]; however, no recommendation was made by the Medical Board with regard to the Petitioner not being fit for Army service.

8.3. He states that he had not appeared before the Release Medical Board because the impugned discharge order dated 11.01.2022 was issued before a Release Medical Board was constituted, which is contrary to the Army Rules. He states that he requested continuation of services and completion of his minimum serving period; howeve