By Express News Service
Highlighting that discipline is an ‘implicit hallmark’ of the Armed Forces and a ‘non-negotiable condition of service’, the Supreme Court refused to grant relief to an Army driver who had taken excess leave without notice.
A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal observed that gross indiscipline by those serving in the forces cannot be tolerated while noting that the appellant, a former sepoy, appeared to be a habitual offender and had remained out of line for far too long by seeking condonation of his leave.
The apex court noted that if accepted (the appeal), it would have sent a wrong signal to others in service.
“Such gross indiscipline on the part of the appellant who was a member of the Armed Forces could not be countenanced. He remained out of line far too often for seeking condonation of his absence of leave, this time, for a prolonged period of 108 days which if accepted, would have sent a wrong signal to others in service,” the order read.
“One must be mindful of the fact that discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of service,” it added.
The Army driver was approaching the top court seeking relief in a February 2015 order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Lucknow Regional Bench dismissing him from service.
The bench observed that the punishment given to him was not that serious compared to his conduct.
“The punishment of dismissal from service on conviction by Court Martial has been treated as a lesser punishment vis-à-vis the punishment of imprisonment for any period below 14 years … sub-section (4) of Section 120 clearly states that a SCM can pass any sentence as contemplated under the Act,” it was noted.
“The appellant had been taking too many liberties during his service and despite several punishments awarded to him earlier, ranging from imposition of fine to rigorous imprisonment, he did not mend his ways. This was his sixth infraction for the very same offence. Therefore, he did not deserve any leniency by infliction of a punishment lesser than that which has been awarded to him,” it was noted.
Highlighting that discipline is an ‘implicit hallmark’ of the Armed Forces and a ‘non-negotiable condition of service’, the Supreme Court refused to grant relief to an Army driver who had taken excess leave without notice.
A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal observed that gross indiscipline by those serving in the forces cannot be tolerated while noting that the appellant, a former sepoy, appeared to be a habitual offender and had remained out of line for far too long by seeking condonation of his leave.
The apex court noted that if accepted (the appeal), it would have sent a wrong signal to others in service.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
“Such gross indiscipline on the part of the appellant who was a member of the Armed Forces could not be countenanced. He remained out of line far too often for seeking condonation of his absence of leave, this time, for a prolonged period of 108 days which if accepted, would have sent a wrong signal to others in service,” the order read.
“One must be mindful of the fact that discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of service,” it added.
The Army driver was approaching the top court seeking relief in a February 2015 order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Lucknow Regional Bench dismissing him from service.
The bench observed that the punishment given to him was not that serious compared to his conduct.
“The punishment of dismissal from service on conviction by Court Martial has been treated as a lesser punishment vis-à-vis the punishment of imprisonment for any period below 14 years … sub-section (4) of Section 120 clearly states that a SCM can pass any sentence as contemplated under the Act,” it was noted.
“The appellant had been taking too many liberties during his service and despite several punishments awarded to him earlier, ranging from imposition of fine to rigorous imprisonment, he did not mend his ways. This was his sixth infraction for the very same offence. Therefore, he did not deserve any leniency by infliction of a punishment lesser than that which has been awarded to him,” it was noted.