Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Amit Kumar Roy, was enrolled as an Airman in the Indian Air Force on 12 January 2004 with a regular engagement ending on 11 January 2024. In August 2010, while posted at Three Base Repair Depot, he applied for the post of Probationary Officer with Bank of India without completing the mandatory seven years of service and without obtaining prior permission from his unit authorities, in breach of Air Force Order 14/2008. He appeared for the written test and interview, was declared successful, and received an appointment order on 28 July 2011. On 30 May 2011, he applied for a No Objection Certificate and discharge. His application was forwarded to Air Headquarters, but before a decision was made, he moved the Armed Forces Tribunal on 16 August 2011 seeking directions for NOC and discharge. The AFT issued an interim order on 18 August 2011 directing provisional issuance of NOC and discharge, subject to the condition that if his OA was dismissed, he would have to rejoin the IAF or face action as a deserter. Pursuant to this, a provisional NOC was issued on 2 September 2011 and a discharge order on 20 September 2011. The appellant joined Bank of India on 24 September 2011. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 12 March 2012 directed the Air Force authorities to dispose of the appellant's application. On 26 March 2012, the application was rejected on grounds that the appellant had applied without prior permission, before completing seven years of service, his trade had critical manning, and the pay scale of the civil post was not equivalent to Group 'A' as per AFO 14/2008. The AFT dismissed the OA as infructuous on 11 April 2012, and the review was dismissed on 25 May 2012. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was later dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant's services with Bank of India were terminated on 30 April 2014 due to lack of a clean discharge certificate, though the termination was stayed by the High Court. The Supreme Court considered the rival submissions. The appellant argued that he had a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to choose his employment, that there was sufficient compliance with AFO 14/2008, and that the pay scale of the bank post was equivalent to Group 'A'. The respondent argued that members of the armed forces have no right to leave service at will, citing Article 33 and the Air Force Act, 1950, and that the appellant breached his statutory obligation. The Supreme Court held that Article 33 allows Parliament to restrict fundamental rights for armed forces members. The Air Force Act, 1950, Sections 13, 14, and 15 impose a statutory obligation to serve during the period of engagement. Air Force Order 14/2008 regulates civilian employment applications. The appellant violated these provisions by applying without prior permission and before completing seven years of service. The rejection of his application was valid, considering the need to maintain manning levels and operational preparedness. The Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the AFT's decision and the rejection of NOC and discharge.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Article 19(1)(g) and Article 33 - Restriction on Right to Freedom of Profession - Members of Armed Forces - The right under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to restrictions imposed by law under Article 33. The Air Force Act, 1950 and Air Force Order 14/2008 impose a statutory obligation to serve during the period of engagement. A member of the Air Force cannot leave service at will; any application for discharge must be considered on a case-to-case basis, balancing individual aspirations with operational requirements. (Paras 9-10) B) Service Law - Discharge from Armed Forces - Air Force Act, 1950, Sections 13, 14, 15 - Statutory Obligation to Serve - Breach of Discipline - The appellant, enrolled as an Airman, applied for a civilian post without prior permission and before completing seven years of mandatory service, violating AFO 14/2008. The Air Force authorities rejected his application for NOC and discharge on grounds of indiscipline, critical manning of his trade, and non-equivalence of pay scale. The Supreme Court held that the appellant had no vested right to leave service and the rejection was valid. (Paras 2-4, 10) C) Service Law - No Objection Certificate - Air Force Order 14/2008 - Conditions for Civil Employment - The appellant applied for a post of Probationary Officer with Bank of India without prior permission and before completing seven years of service. The pay scale of the civil post was not equivalent to Group 'A' government post as per AFO 14/2008. The appellant's trade (Air Frame Fitter) had critical manning. The Supreme Court upheld the rejection of NOC and discharge, noting that the appellant breached discipline and the authorities acted within their discretion. (Paras 2-4, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a member of the Indian Air Force has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to leave service at will and seek civilian employment without completing mandatory service or obtaining prior permission, and whether the denial of No Objection Certificate and discharge was valid.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal and the rejection of the appellant's application for No Objection Certificate and discharge. The Court held that the appellant had no fundamental right to leave service at will and that the Air Force authorities validly rejected his application under Air Force Order 14/2008 and the Air Force Act, 1950.
Law Points
- Fundamental rights of armed forces members can be restricted by law under Article 33
- Statutory obligation to serve during engagement period under Air Force Act 1950
- No vested right to leave service without prior permission
- Breach of discipline attracts disciplinary action
