9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenging legality of judgment by Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, legality of order passed by learned Single Judge, dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal, review petition dismissal, legality of dismissal from service under Section 20(1) of Army Act, violation of Rule 17 of Army Rules, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Analysis: The judgment in question involves the appellant, a former Havildar/Clerk in Ladakh Scouts, who was dismissed from service due to involvement in espionage activities. The appellant challenged the dismissal order, alleging it was illegal, unconstitutional, and violated procedural rules and constitutional rights. The respondent-Union of India defended the dismissal, stating that necessary approvals were obtained and procedures were followed. The High Court upheld the dismissal, ruling that the authorities were empowered to take action under Section 20 of the Army Act and Rule 17 of the Army Rules. The appellant's appeals and review petition were subsequently dismissed by the High Court. The core issue revolved around the interpretation and application of Rule 17 of the Army Rules, specifically the proviso to the rule. The proviso allows for dismissal or removal without following the standard procedure if it is deemed impracticable, with a requirement to report such cases to the Central Government. The appellant argued that the dismissal order did not comply with Rule 17, while the respondent contended that the Chief of the Army Staff followed the necessary procedure and provided the required certification. The judgment emphasized the significance of the proviso in Rule 17, stating that it carves out exceptions to the main provision and should be applied only in specific instances where compliance is impracticable. The Court reviewed the original records and noted that the Chief of the Army Staff had indeed followed the required procedure and provided the necessary certification, thus upholding the dismissal order. Additionally, the Court addressed the appellant's argument regarding the continuation of the enquiry, clarifying that the enquiry was not specifically about the appellant but related to the incident in question. The Court cited precedent to support the notion that departmental action can proceed even after a Court Martial, as long as it is not a colorable exercise of power or an abuse of power. Furthermore, the Court rejected the appellant's claim that Central Government approval was necessary for actions taken under the proviso to Rule 17, clarifying that reporting to the Central Government sufficed. Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, with no costs awarded. In conclusion, the judgment delves into the interpretation and application of Rule 17 of the Army Rules, emphasizing the importance of following procedural requirements and the limitations imposed by the proviso to the rule. The Court's detailed analysis and reliance on legal precedents ensure a thorough examination of the issues raised by the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
|
