Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a writ petition dismissed by the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on 13 September 1993, challenging the discharge of the appellant from service as M.E.R (Technical)/Nursing Assistant in the Army Medical Corps. The appellant had appeared in the M.E.R. (Technical) Examination on 24 January 1988, was selected, and enrolled on 29 February 1988. At enrolment, a prescribed form under Section 13 of the Army Act, 1950 was filled, including question No. 8 which asked whether the candidate was under trial for any offence or had any complaint or report made to Magistrate or Police. The form recorded the answer as 'No'. Subsequently, the District Magistrate, Lucknow, informed the A.M.C. Centre and School by letter dated 21 December 1988 that a criminal case was pending against the appellant under Sections 147, 452, 324 and 323 IPC before the Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution Control), Lucknow. A show cause notice dated 20 May 1989 was issued, and the appellant replied on 23 May 1989 admitting pendency of the criminal case but alleging false implication. On 12 September 1989, the appellant was discharged under Army Rule 13(3)(IV) of the table appended to Rule 13 of the Army Rules, 1954, which allows discharge of an enrolled but not attested person considered unlikely to become an efficient soldier. The appellant contended that the enrolment form was signed blank and filled later, that the show cause notice was never served, and that he was actually acquitted in the criminal case. He also argued that there was a discrepancy in the question mentioned in counter affidavits filed by respondents. The Supreme Court examined the original enrolment form and the declaration signed by the appellant that the answers were true. Applying Section 13 of the Army Act, the Court held that filling the enrolment form was an official act and a presumption of regularity attached to it. The appellant's signature on the declaration precluded him from disowning the answers. The Court found that the appellant had made a false answer by not disclosing the pending criminal case. Regarding the show cause notice, the Court observed that even if service was disputed, the appellant had submitted his explanation dated 23 May 1989 which was considered before the discharge order was passed, so no prejudice was caused. The Court also held that the minor discrepancy in the counter affidavits regarding the exact wording of the question was not fatal because the substance of the question was the same. It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court's decision, upholding the discharge. No order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Enrolment in Army - False Answer in Enrolment Form - Army Act, 1950, Section 13 - Appellant enrolled as M.E.R. (Technical)/Nursing Assistant filled enrolment form which contained question about pending criminal case; answer recorded as 'No'. Court held that under Section 13 of Army Act, enrolment form is official act and presumption of regularity applies; appellant signed declaration that answers were true, could not disown; non-disclosure of pending criminal case constituted false answer. Held that discharge on this ground was valid. B) Service Law - Discharge from Army Service - Discharge under Rule 13(3)(IV) - Army Rules, 1954, Rule 13(3)(IV) - Rule permits discharge of enrolled but not attested person considered unlikely to become efficient soldier; court upheld discharge order dated 12 September 1989 as valid because appellant had made false answer in enrolment form. Held discharge was legally sustainable. C) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Show Cause Notice Service - Army Act, 1950, Section 13 - Appellant contended show cause notice dated 20 May 1989 was never served; court found that appellant submitted explanation dated 23 May 1989 which was considered before discharge; any alleged non-service did not cause prejudice. Held order was not vitiated. D) Evidence Law - Presumption of Regularity - Official Acts - General Principles - Army Act, 1950, Section 13 - Court applied presumption of regularity to official act of filling enrolment form; appellant could not rebut presumption by alleging signatures on blank form. Held presumption supported validity of enrolment form and answers recorded.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant made a false answer in the enrolment form by not disclosing a pending criminal case; whether the discharge order under Army Rule 13(3)(IV) was vitiated due to alleged non-service of show cause notice; whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the writ petition
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. The discharge order dated 12 September 1989 stands confirmed.
Law Points
- Section 13 Army Act
- 1950 requires enrolling officer to put prescribed questions and record answers
- enrolment form is official act with presumption of regularity
- signature on declaration that answers are true prevents disowning answers
- non-disclosure of pending criminal case amounts to false answer
- discharge under Rule 13(3)(IV) of Army Rules
- 1954 valid
- non-service of show cause notice not fatal if explanation submitted and considered
