"Due process was not followed to discharge soldier:" Armed Forces Tribunal directs Army to reinstate Lance Naik

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) on March 5 directed the Central government and the Chief of Army staff to reinstate the services of a Lance Naik who was discharged from service by the Army in 2013 (Lance Naik Manish Shukla v. Union of India and Ors)..A Lucknow Bench of the AFT held that due process and procedure was not followed by authorities while discharging Lance Naik Manish Shukla and, therefore, quashed the discharge order of September 2013. "Facts show that due process and procedure was not followed for discharge of applicant. It gives rise to doubts about malafide intentions," the AFT said. The Bench which comprised Justice UC Srivastava (Judicial member) and Vice-Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve (Administrative member) held that Shukla was discharged from service forcefully in violation of rules and regulations of service and ordered that he be reinstated with all consequential benefits. The respondents have to comply with the order within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order and any delay shall invite interest at 8% per annum till actual payment, the Court added. .Shukla had joined the Indian Army in 2003 and he got married the very next year. Subsequently, in 2013 he applied for a family accommodation, which was granted.Further, he applied for a 'causal' leave of 14-15 days for a family function, which was sanctioned. Before left for the family function, a quarrel took place between his child and the child of Halwidar GS Rathore. Later when Shukla was on leave, the quarrel that happened between the children was reported to the Commanding Officer. Due to some wrong inputs by Havildar Rathore, Shukla was recalled from his native village and was asked to report to the unit. A Subedar and Havildar then went to Shukla's village and forcefully brought him to the unit and placed him under detention. His wife also followed him and reached the unit location..Later both Shukla and his wife were forced to sign papers of discharge.The discharge order was then challenged by Shukla before AFT..The counsel for applicant, submitted before the AFT that Shukla has served "with unblemished record for 10 years and 7 moths" without any minor or major punishment during his entire service career. It was also contended that the application for discharge was signed under coercion and threat "which cannot be treated as an application for discharge from service on his own accord.".On the other, government counsel submitted that the applicant's version was not true. It was the government's case that Shukla had earlier applied for premature discharge from service and then he was sent home to re-think about his decision. It was told that Shukla was not responding to any calls from the unit and officers were sent to his village due to the same. Further, it was submitted that after the aforesaid incident, the applicant was discharged under item 13(3) iii (4) of Army Rules, 1954. Later, when the applicant filed an application, before the Chief Army Staff challenging the quashing order, it was rejected because applicant was discharged from service at his own request. .The AFT, after reviewing the material placed on record, expressed concern over the discharge order passed by the authorities. It noted that there was undue haste in passing the discharge order allegedly as per Shukla's request on September 26, 2013 when they could have waited for Shukla's return from his village on September 30, 2013. "It is surprising that the applicant's request of premature discharge was sanctioned by the commanding officer of September 26, 2013, although he could have waited till the return of the applicant on September 30," the order said. .The tribunal further noted that the discharge order of September 30 said that Shukla had already reported to the Depot Coy for discharge drill."It is not understood how the applicant reported to Depot Coy before issuance of discharge order as the discharge order was issued on September 30, 2013 to be discharged from service on the same day. It is not clear how Shukla was able to report so quickly to Depot Coy at Kamptee when he was posted at Nashirabad, Rajasthan. It is strange that the formalities of the discharge was completed within one day."Any person who is required to proceed on discharge will ordinarily report to the Depot Coy only after issue of discharge order, the tribunal added. .The Bench, therefore, ruled that the discharge was not in compliance with the procedure established by law."Perusal of the above facts show that due procedure and process was not followed to discharge the applicant even if such a discharge was indeed at his own request," the AFT said. Hence, it directed that the applicant be reinstated with immediate effect. "The applicant shall be entitled to all financial benefits, including pay in present rank in accordance with law and pension from the date of discharge to the date he reaches pensionable services. The applicant shall be entitled to terminal benefits and pensions as per the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 with 8% interest on arrears.".[Read Order]