Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5616  OF 2015 (Arising from SLP(C) No.12917/2012)

Union of India and others ...Appellants

versus

Balwant Singh ..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

1. The respondent was inducted into the service of the Assam

Rifles  as  a  Rifleman  on  25.11.1991.   He  claims  to  have  discharged

his  duties  to  the  absolute  satisfaction  of  his  superiors,  and  earned

promotions to higher ranks til l  2007, when he came to hold the rank

of  Havaldar.   Whilst  holding  the  rank  of  Havaldar,  he  was  issued  a

show  cause  notice  dated  27.08.2008  informing  him,  that  he  had

earned four “Red Ink entries”,  and asking him why he should not  be

discharged  from  service.   The  aforesaid  show  cause  notice  relied

upon  certain  provisions  of  the  Assam  Rifles  Act,  1941,  besides  the

Assam  Rifles  Manual,  and  also  Clause  5  of  the  Record  of  Office

Instructions 1/2004 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ROI 1/2004').

2. In  the  show  cause  notice,  the  respondent  was  intimated,

that  he  had  earned  nine  punishments  which  included  five  “Red  Ink

entries” and “four Black Ink entries”.   The details  of  the disciplinary

Page 2

2

action  taken  against  the  respondent  has  been  depicted  in  a

compilation,  which  is  a  part  of  the  record  of  the  case,  and  is  being

extracted hereunder:

 S. NO. OFFENCE DATE  OF

OFFENCE STATEMENT  OF OFFENCE

PUNISHMENT AWARDED

(a) AA Sec 39 (b) 14 Nov 99 Without  sufficient cause  of overstaying  leave granted to him

10  days  pay fine on 30 Nov 99

(b) AR  Act  1941 Sec  9  An  act prejudicial  to good order  and discipline  

27 Mar 05 Intoxication 7  days forfeiture  od pay on 28 Mar 05

(c) AA Sec - 48 24 May 07 Intoxication 14  days  pay fine  on 01 Jun 07

(d) AA Sec - 48 23 Jul 07 Intoxication Severe reprimand  and 14  days  pay fine  on  23  Jul 07

(e) AA Sec - 48 07 Oct 07 Intoxication Severe reprimand  on 15 Oct 07

(f) AA Sec - 48 10 Oct 07 Intoxication 14  days  pay fine on 16 Oct 07

(g) AA Sec – 39 (b) 06 Feb 08 Without  sufficient cause  of overstaying  leave granted to him

Severe reprimand  on 01 Mar 08

(h) AA Sec - 48 11 Aug 08 Intoxication Severe reprimand  on 26 Aug 08

(i) AA Sec – 39 (c) and AA Sec - 48

29 Dec 08 Absenting  himself without  leave  and intoxication

Severe reprimand  on 06 Jan 09

It  is  relevant  to  mention,  that  the  four  “Red  Ink  entries”  taken  into

consideration,  insofar  as the show cause notice  dated 27.08.2008 is

Page 3

3

concerned,  are  depicted  at  serial  nos.  (d),  (e),  (g)  and  (h)  of  the

above  compilation.   The  details  of  the  cause/action,  why  the  above

punishments were inflicted on the respondent (at serial nos. (d), (e),

(g)  and (h)),  have also  been  expressed in  the  pleadings.   Insofar  as

the punishment at serial  no. (d)  is  concerned,  the same came to be

imposed  on  the  respondent  on  account  of  the  fact  that  on

23.07.2007,  while  he  was  on  “motor  vehicle  check  post  duty”  at

19:50  hrs.,  he  was  found  in  an  intoxication  state.   Insofar  as  the

punishment  at  serial  no.  (e)  is  concerned,  it  was  pointed  out,  that

the  respondent  was  again  found  in  an  intoxicating  state,  while  on

“platoon  training  duty”  at  Diphu  on  07.10.2007  at  20:45  hrs.   The

third punishment at serial no. (g) was imposed on the respondent, on

account of  his  having overstayed leave, granted to him, for a period

of  eighteen  days.   The  last  of  the  above  punishments,  depicted  at

serial  no.  (h),  was  imposed  on  the  respondent,  on  account  of  the

fact,  that  he  was  again  found in  an intoxicated state  on 11.08.2008

at  17:00 hrs., while on “road opening party duty”.

3. In  addition  to  the  factual  position,  indicated  hereinabove,

learned counsel  for  the appellants highlights  the fact,  that  after  the

first three “Red Ink entries” were recorded against the respondent, a

notice  dated 2.3.2008 was  issued to  him,  informing the  respondent,

that he had already been issued three “Red Ink entries”, and that he

was  liable  to  be  discharged  from  service,  in  case  one  further  “Red

Ink  entry”  is  recorded.   The  respondent  submitted  a  reply  thereto,

undertaking  not  to  commit  any  further  delinquency,  and

acknowledging,  that  in  case  one  further  “Red  Ink  entry”  was  issued

Page 4

4

to him, he may be discharged from service.

4. In  response  to  the  show  cause  notice  dated  27.08.2008,

which  was issued to  the respondent  after  the fourth “Red Ink entry”

was  recorded  on  26.08.2008,  the  respondent  submitted  a  reply

acknowledging the entire factual position depicted in the show cause

notice.   It  is  therefore,  that  an  order  of  discharge  dated  7.2.2009

was passed.  In the above order of discharge, it was mentioned, that

the  action  had  been  taken  against  the  respondent,  inter  alia,  under

Clause  5  of  ROI  1/2004,  as  it  had  been  concluded,  that  he  was  an

'incorrigible  offender'.   Despite  having  so  concluded,  he  was  held

entitled to pension and gratuity, as were admissible under the rules.

5. Dissatisfied  with  the  order  of  discharge,  the  respondent

addressed  a  representation  dated  20.04.2009  to  the  Director

General, Assam Rifles.  The aforesaid representation was rejected by

an  order  dated  8.5.2009.   The  respondent  assailed  all  the  adverse

orders  passed  against  him,  by  filing  Writ  Petition  No.  167(SH)  of

2009 before the Gauhati High Court.   The aforesaid writ  petition was

dismissed  by  a  learned  Single  Judge  on  22.4.2010.   The  respondent

then preferred Writ Appeal No. (SH)54 of 2010, which was allowed by

an  order  dated  2.11.2011.   The  instant  special  leave  petition  was

filed  by  the  Union  of  India  and  others,  so  as  to  assail  the  order

passed by the Division Bench on 2.11.2011.

6. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

7. A perusal  of  the impugned order reveals,  that the Division

Bench  of  the  High  Court  did  not  find  any  serious  fault  with  the

impugned  order  passed  by  the  learned  Single  Judge,  except  that  it

Page 5

5

was  felt,  that  the  punishment  imposed  upon  the  respondent  was

disproportionate,  when  compared  to  the  charges  on  which  the  four

“Red Ink entries” had been recorded.   To appreciate the basis  of  the

directions,  and the  nature of  the  direction  issued  by  the  High  Court

while  disposing  of  the  writ  appeal  filed  by  the  respondent  on

2.11.2011,  we  find  it  just  and  appropriate  to  extract  paragraphs  18

and 19 of the order passed by the Division Bench:

“18. Bearing  in  mind  the  long  service  career  that the delinquent was left with in the Organization and considering  the  serious  hardship  that  the  family would  suffer  when the  breadearner  is  discharged  at the  age  of  35  years  after  17  years  of  service  and also  taking  into  consideration  the  discretionary nature  of  the  power  under  Clause  5  of  the  Record Office Instructions (ROI) and taking into account the nature  of  the  4  violations  for  which  the  red  ink entries were given, we feel that a penalty which will not result in discontinuation of service, would better serve  the  cause  of  justice.  In  the  context  of  the charges,  we  feel  that  the  punishment  is disproportionate  and  the  disciplinary  authority should  have  inflicted  a  lesser  punishment  to  the delinquent, so that he could continue in service.

19. Consequently  we  feel  inclined  to  interfere with  the  impugned  order(s)  of  07-07-2009  and 08-05-2009  and  accordingly  the  same are  set  aside and  quashed.  The  petitioner  is  ordered  to  be reinstated  in  service  subject  to  assessment  of  his physical  fitness.  However,  the  respondents  are  at liberty  to  impose  any  lesser  punishment  balancing the  interest  of  the  organization  and  also  of  the delinquent.  Accordingly  we  interfere  with  the impugned  judgment  of  29-11-2010  and  allow  this Appeal without any order of cost.”

8. During  the  course  of  hearing,  learned  counsel  for  the

appellants   supported  the  impugned  order  of  discharge  dated

7.2.2009, merely on the strength of Clause 5 of the ROI 1/2004. The

same is being extracted hereunder:

Page 6

6

“5. Discharge/Disposal  of  Undesirable/Inefficient Personnel  :  Vide  Chapter  VIII,  Rule  24  of  the  Assam Rifles  Manual  confers  powers  on  the  commandants of Assam Rifles Battalion to discharge any members of  the  Assam Rifles  below  the  rank  of  Nb/Sub.  This power  may  be  exercised  by  a  Commandant  in  case where a person has got four or more red ink entries. In  case,  it  is  necessary  to  send  an  individual  on discharge  under  this  provision,  a  notice  will  be served on the individual  affording an opportunity  to him  to  explain  his  case.   Thereafter  the  complete case  will  be  forwarded  to  Sector  HQ along  with  the notice  and  reply  received  from  the  individual,  for the  approval  of  the  Sector  Commander.  Thereafter the  documents  will  be  sent  to  this  Directorate, Record  Branch/UPAO  for  final  settlement  of  his IRLA.”

Referring  to  the  above  clause,  it  was  the  contention  of  the  learned

counsel  for  the  appellants,  that  before  an  order  of  discharge  could

be passed by the Commandant, there were certain perquisites which

included  that  a  notice  need  to  be  served  to  the  concerned

individual,  affording  him  an  opportunity  to  explain  his  case.   Upon

receipt of his reply and the determination of the issue, the complete

case need to be forwarded to the Sector Headquarter (along with the

notice  and the  reply,  for  approval  at  the hands of  the Commander),

and  finally  all  the  documents  were  to  be  sent  to  the  Directorate,

Record  Branch/UPAO  for  final  settlement  of  the  “individual  running

ledger  account”.   It  was  submitted  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the

appellants,  that  all  the  necessary  perquisites  were  complied  with,

and  more  particularly,  the  show  cause  notice  dated  27.8.2008  was

issued  to  the  respondent,  and  action  was  taken  against  the

respondent,  only  upon  his  having  submitted  a  reply  thereto.  It  is

also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, that in

the  reply  filed  by  the  respondent,  he  had  admitted  the  factual

Page 7

7

position,  namely,  the  recording  of  four  “Red  Ink  entries”,  which

constituted the basis for the show cause notice for discharge, issued

to him.

9. Despite  the  satisfaction  of  the  terms  and  conditions  of

discharge  emerging  from  Clause  5  of  ROI  1/2004,  it  was  the

contention  of  the learned counsel  for  the respondent,  that  it  will  be

unfair  and  unjust  to  discharge  the  respondent  from  service,  on

account of his unblemished record of service, including the fact that

he  had  been  selected  for  participation  in  the  Republic  Day

contingent  for  three  consecutive  years,  besides  that,  he  had  also

earned laurels for having captured militants and recovered arms and

ammunitions.   Additionally,  it  was  the  contention  of  the  learned

counsel,  that  the  respondent  had  discharged  unblemished  service

selflessly  by  risking  his  life  on  various  occasions,  only  with  the

object of obediently discharging the duties assigned to him.

10. The  second  contention  advanced  at  the  hands  of  the

learned  counsel  for  the  respondent,  was  of  discrimination.   It  was

the  contention  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent,  that  one

Jose  Nedum  Joseph,  who  was   dismissed  from  service,  had

approached  the  High  Court  by  filing  Writ  Petition  (C)  No.  2099  of

1999,  and  the  order  of  dismissal  from  service  inflicted  upon  him,

was  reduced  to  that  of  discharge.   It  was  submitted,  that  the

afore-stated  Jose  Nedum  Joseph  was  alleged  to  have  committed

delinquencies  relating  to  cheating,  indiscipline,  and  such  actions,

where  the  safety  of  the  unit  was  compromised.  Additionally,  the

aforesaid Jose Nedum Joseph was also accused of insubordination.  It

Page 8

8

was  the  contention  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent,  that

as  compared  to  the  delinquency  alleged  against  the  afore-stated

Jose  Nedum  Joseph,  the  charges  levelled  against  the  respondent

were  only,  that  of  having  been  found  intoxicated  while  on  duty  on

three  occasions,  and  absent  from  duty  without  leave  on  one

occasion.  It  was  submitted,  that  none  of  the  above  charges

compromised  the  security  of  the  unit,  and  as  such,  the  punishment

of  discharge was highly  disproportionate to the accusations levelled

against him.

11. We  have  given  our  thoughtful  consideration  to  the

submissions  advanced  at  the  hands  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the

rival parties.  Assam Rifles is admittedly a disciplined force, wherein

indiscipline  would  undermine  the  task  entrusted  to  it.   Therefore,

indiscipline  at  that  hands  of  the  uniformed  personnel  of  force,

cannot  be  tolerated.  Insofar  as  the  present  controversy  is

concerned,  after  three  “Red  Ink  entries”  were  issued  to  the

respondent,  wherein  he  was  “severely  reprimanded”,  he  was  issued

a  notice  dated  2.3.2008  informing  him  that  one  further  “Red  Ink

entry”  would  entail  discharge  from  service.  The  respondent

acknowledged the  receipt  of  the  aforesaid  notice,  and  undertook  to

ensure that he would not earn any further “Red Ink entry”.  And that,

in  case another “Red Ink entry” was issued to him,  he would accept

discharge from service.  Despite the above, soon after the receipt of

the  above  notice  dated  2.3.2008,  yet  another  “Red  Ink  entry”  was

issued  to  the  respondent  on  11.08.2008.   Not  only  that,  even  a

further punishment was inflicted on the respondent, after the last of

Page 9

9

the  four  “Red  Ink  entries”,  on  29.12.2008,  when  he  was  again

severely  reprimanded  and  issued  a  further  “Red  Ink  entry”  on

6.1.2009,  for  having  absented  himself  without  leave  and  for  having

been found in an intoxicated state, while on duty, on 29.12.2008.

12. In  the  above  view of  the  matter,  we  are of  the  view,  that

not only were the parameters depicted in Clause 5 of the ROI 1/2004

fully  satisfied,  even  the  Commanding  Officer  was  satisfied  that  the

delinquency  of  the  respondent   could  be  ignored,  and  as  such,  the

order  of  discharge  dated  7.2.2009 was  passed.  We find  no  infirmity

in the passing of the above order.

13. Another  basis,  for  concluding  the  issue  in  favour  of  the

respondent  by  the  Division  Bench  was,  that  while  exercising  the

power  to  discharge,  the  competent  authority  had not  complied  with

the mandate contained in  sub-section  (3)  of  Section  4 of  the Assam

Rifles  Act.  Section  4,  relied  upon  by  the  High  Court,  is  being

extracted hereunder:  

“4. APPOINTMENTS AND DISCHARGE

1.)  The  appointment  of  all  riflemen  shall  rest  with the Commandant.

2.)  Before any person is  appointed to be a rifleman, the  statement  in  the  Schedule  shall  be  read  and  if necessary  explained  to  him  in  the  presence  of  a Magistrate,  Commandant,  and  shall  be  signed  by him  in  acknowledgment  of  it's  having  been  so  read to him.

3.)  A rifleman shall  not be entitled to be discharged except  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the statement  which  he  has  signed  under  this  Act  or under the Assam Rifles Act, 1920.”

14. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended,

Page 10

10

that  sub-section  (3)  of  Section  4,  referred  to  by  the  High  Court,  is

inapplicable  in  a  situation  where  the  discharge  is  to  be  ordered  by

the  employer.  According  to  the  learned  counsel,  sub-section  (3)  of

Section 4, would be applicable when the concerned employee claims

discharge  after  having  rendered  specified  service,  as  depicted  in

“The  Schedule  Statement”,  appended  to  the  Assam  Rifles  Act,

namely, four years of service in the first instance.

15. We find  merit  in  the  contention  advanced at  the  hands  of

the learned counsel for the appellants.  In a case of discharge by the

employer, namely, the Assam Rifles, sub-section (3) of Section 4 has

no  applicability.  A  collective  perusal  of  Section  4  extracted  above,

and  “The  Schedule  Statement”  appended  to  the  Assam  Rifles  Act,

leaves  no  room  for  any  doubt,  that  the  provisions  of  the  Act  also

vest  an  option  with  the  employees  governed  by  the  Act  to  seek

discharge  from  service.   Section  4(3)  is  the  pointed  provision.   As

such,  it  is  imperative  for  us  to  hold,  that  the  Division  Bench  of  the

High  Court  erroneously  concluded,  that  the  punishment  in  the

present  case,  could  not  have  been  supported  on  the  basis  of  the

powers  given  to  the  Commandant,  under  Section  4  of  the  Assam

Rifles Act.

16. Insofar as the issue of discrimination is concerned, insofar

as  the  instance  of  Jose  Nedum  Joseph  has  been  cited  on  behalf  of

the respondent,  we find no comparison thereof with the delinquency

alleged  against  the  respondent.  Firstly,  because  Jose  Nedum Joseph

was originally ordered to be dismissed from service.  The High Court

had  reduced  the  order  of  punishment  of  dismissal  to  that  of

Page 11

11

discharge.   In  the instant  case,  on account  of  the compliance of  the

provisions  of  Clause  5  of  ROI  1/2004,  the  respondent  was  merely

discharged  from  duty.   The  order  of  discharge  was  in  compliance

with the provisions made by the authorities.  Moreover, it  cannot be

accepted  that  the  respondent  did  not  compromise  the  safety  of  his

unit, whilst he was found to be in an intoxicated state while on duty.

It  is  quite  another  matter,  that  no  incident  occurred  at  the  time,

when  the  respondent  was  found  to  be  intoxicated.   The  plea  of

discrimination is accordingly unacceptable.

17. For  the  reasons  recorded  hereinabove,  we  are  satisfied

that  the  impugned  order  passed  by  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High

Court  dated  2.11.2011  deserves  to  be  set  aside.   Ordered

accordingly.

18. The  instant  appeal  is  accordingly  allowed.   The  parties

shall bear their own costs.

…...................................J. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]

NEW DELHI; …....................................J. JULY 22, 2015. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]    

Page 12

12

ITEM NO.2               COURT NO.4               SECTION XIV                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No.5616/2015 @ SLP(C) No.  12917/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                              Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS BALWANT SINGH                                      Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and interim relief and  office report) Date : 22/07/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

For Appellant(s) Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Adv. Ms. Madhvi Divan, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv.

                   for Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,AOR                       For Respondent(s) Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee,Adv.                    Ms.Upma Shrivastava, Adv.             UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed judgment.

(Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kr. Chawla)  Court Master      AR-cum-PS

{signed judgment is placed on the file]