IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.05.2025 ROHIT KUMAR ... Petitioner VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.

Present: Mr. N.K. Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Karan Kumar Jund, Sr. Panel Counsel for the respondents.

****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner has instituted the present writ petition challenging the order dated 30.04.2021 (Annexure P-1), issued by Respondent No.1 – the Commandant, National Defence Academy (NDA), Khadakwasla, Pune, whereby the petitioner was withdrawn from the National Defence Academy on disciplinary grounds.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to a family with a legacy of service in the Armed Forces, being the second- generation serviceman. His father retired from the rank of Havildar and was conferred the honorary rank of Naib Subedar at the time of retirement. The petitioner qualified for and was selected in NDA Course No. 140, scheduled to commence in July 2018. He joined the Academy as an Army Cadet on 09.07.2018 and is stated to have undergone training with utmost dedication, diligence, and enthusiasm.

It is contended that the petitioner was an exemplary cadet and, in recognition of his leadership and merit, was appointed as the Divisional Cadet Captain, a position of responsibility which, according to learned counsel, may have led to resentment among certain junior cadets. As Divisional Cadet Captain, the petitioner was tasked with maintaining discipline and ensuring compliance with Academy regulations during non-training hours—duties that, by their nature, might have earned him unpopularity among some of his peers.

Learned counsel further submits that on 18.02.2021, one cadet from the Third Term absented himself from the Club Parade. Upon being apprised of the absence, the petitioner directed his term mates to instruct the said cadet to report to him after the conclusion of the parade. However, the absentee cadet appeared only later that evening. When questioned regarding the delay and not satisfied with the response, the petitioner is stated to have imposed a minor penalty upon him. It is contended that the sequence of events, as narrated in detail in the writ petition, indicates that the petitioner became the victim of certain frivolous and malicious complaints arising from this incident.

Despite being at the threshold of completing his final term of training on 30.04.2021, the petitioner was, on 29.04.2021, informed orally that he was to be marched before the Commandant. Upon presentation, he was informed that he had been awarded the punishment of withdrawal from the course on disciplinary grounds. The formal movement orders, dated 30.04.2021, were thereafter issued to him, conveying that the petitioner stood withdrawn from the Academy with effect from 29.04.2021 on account of disciplinary reasons.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the impugned order of withdrawal stands vitiated for having been passed in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the petitioner's fundamental right to a fair hearing. It is urged that the petitioner was condemned unheard, and the punitive action taken against him is manifestly arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be set aside on the following grounds:-

(i) That no charge sheet or statement of allegations was ever served upon the petitioner detailing the specific allegations levelled against him;

(ii) That no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner affording him an opportunity to respond to or explain his defence against the charges;

(iii) That the petitioner was not supplied with the copy of evidence or statement forming the basis of the alleged misconduct;

(iv) That no opportunity was given to the petitioner to seek assistance or representation by a counsel of his choice to defend himself against the imposition of such a grave and career-altering penalty;

(v) That no pro