SC says Discipline is hallmark of Army, Refuses Petition of Driver

Discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of service, the Supreme Court said while turning down an army personnel’s plea against his dismissal for overstaying the leave granted to him.

The appellant enrolled in the Army Service Corps as a mechanical transport driver on January 4, 1983.

In 1998, he was initially granted leave for 39 days from November 8 to December 16. His request for extension of the leave on compassionate grounds was allowed by the respondents and he was granted a 30-day advance annual leave for the year 1999 from December 17, 1998, to January 15, 1999. Despite this, he failed to rejoin duty.

Claiming that his wife had fallen ill and he was arranging her treatment and looking after her, the man overstayed the leave granted to him.

On February 15, 1999, a Court of Inquiry was conducted under Section 106 of the Army Act to investigate the circumstances under which the appellant had overstayed leave.

The court opined that he be declared a deserter with effect from January 16, 1999. The Summary Court Martial found him guilty and dismissed him from service.

In the top court, a bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Rajesh Bindal said the army personnel did not place any document on record by way of the treatment summary or medical certificate of his wife to demonstrate that she was seriously ill and required his presence for constant treatment.

“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.

“One must be mindful of the fact that discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of service,” the bench said.

The apex court said the army personnel, being a habitual offender, did not deserve leniency.

 

Ashish Sinha

-Ashish Kumar Sinha -Editor Legally Speaking -Ram Nath Goenka awardee - 14 Years of Experience in Media - Covering Courts Since 2008

Recent Posts

Defamation Case: “Raut Didn’t Take Care & Caution, Caused Complainant Agony”- Mumbai Court

A Mumbai court has convicted Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut in a defamation case…

16 hours ago

1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Tytler Case: Delhi Court Records Statement Of Lakhvinder Kaur

The Rouse Avenue court on Thursday recorded the emotional testimony of Lakhvinder Kaur, widow of…

16 hours ago

Satyendar Jain Says Probe In Money Laundering Case Incomplete, Seeks Default Bail In Delhi HC

Former minister Satyendar Jain, currently in jail, urged the Delhi High Court on Thursday to…

16 hours ago

Tirupati Laddus Row: SC To Hear Pleas Seeking Court-Monitored Probe On Oct 4

The Supreme Court is set to hear a series of petitions on Friday regarding the…

17 hours ago

SC Scraps Caste-Based Discrimination In Prisons, Terms It Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a groundbreaking judgment on Thursday, declaring caste-based discrimination in…

17 hours ago

Mahadev Betting App Case: SC Gives Bail To Chhattisgarh Businessman

The Supreme Court on Thursday has granted bail to Chhattisgarh businessman Sunil Dammani, who was…

17 hours ago