Advocates:
B. V. BALARAM DASB. D. SHARMA

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 4

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 2668 of 2002

PETITIONER:

Union of India and Ors

RESPONDENT:

Rajesh Vyas

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/02/2008

BENCH:

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2668 OF 2002

(With C.A. No 2669, 2670, 2671 and 2672 of 2002)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. These five appeals have a common matrix in the

judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at

Jodhpur dated 26.9.2000. Eight Special Appeals were filed by

the Union of India and Others under Section 18 of the

Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (in short the

’Ordinance’). Challenge in the Special Appeals was to the order

passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court allowing

the writ petitions filed. It was held that the dispute in writ

petitions was squarely covered in favour of the writ petitioners

by a judgment of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v.

Corporal A.K. Bakshi and Anr. (1996 (3) SCC 65). The High

Court by the common impugned judgment upheld the view of

the learned Single Judge in four cases and in two cases held

that the appeals filed by the Union of India deserved to be

allowed. In four cases filed by the Union of India before this

Court, the Division Bench upheld the view of the learned

Single Judge and held that the order was passed in clear

violation of the principles of natural justice.

2. In the said appeals, stand of the Union of India is that

show cause notice was issued to which reply was furnished by

the respondent in each case and after consideration of the

same, the order of discharge was passed.

3. In the two appeals, which were decided in favour of the

Union of India it was held that show cause notice was duly

issued and there was no reply. Against one such order Civil

Appeal No.2670 of 2002 has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Union of India

submitted that the original records were produced before the

High Court. They clearly indicate that show cause notice was

issued which fact was not disputed by the respondents. The

fact that each of such respondents had replied is also not

disputed. It is the stand of the Union of India that both

learned Single Judge and the Division Bench went wrong in

holding that without consideration of the replies the order of

discharge had been passed.

5. In one of the appeals i.e. Civil Appeal No. 2668 of 2002

learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 4

of discharge does not indicate any consideration of the show

cause notice reply. In the other three cases, there is no

appearance on behalf of the respondents.

6. In appeal filed by Santosh Singh i.e. Civil Appeal No.

2670 of 2002 the High Court categorically found that show

cause notice was not responded to. There is no appearance

on behalf of the appellant when the matter was called.

7. It appears that the Habitual Offenders’ Policy was

formulated as a result of a project study on offences of

’absence without leave’ and other offences committed by

Airmen made by the Institute of Defence Management, which

brought out the salient features regarding the existence of

habitual offenders amongst Airmen in Indian Air Force. It was

found that there was a specific hard core group of airmen in

the Air Force who have been contributing regularly and

predominantly to the annual offence statistics in the Air Force,

year after year. This group of Airmen have been a strong

source of adverse influence on the general discipline of other

Airmen in the service. Some adverse effects noticed were as

follows:

(a) serious adverse effect and influence on the general

morale and discipline, especially on the young

airmen joining various units from the training

centers.

(b) Unit level administration was kept pre-occupied

with these chronic in discipline cases impinging on

ti