Sgt Prasenjit Roy vs Union of India & Ors

Invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the applicant has filed this application and the reliefs claimed by him read as under:

(a) Admit the original application.

(b) To pass an appropriate Order directing the concerned respondent authorities and each one of them to grant discharge your applicant on extreme compassionate grounds by setting aside the impugned order dated  28th April,  2021  passed by the respondent no. 3.

(c)  To produce all the records in connection with the  interest case before this Learned Tribunal,  for the ends of justice.

(d)  Any other order or further orders as  this  Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

The applicant is serving as a Sergeant (Sgt) in the Unit of 337  TRU  Kanchrapara  and  seeks  discharge  from  service  on compassionate  grounds  in  accordance  to  the  policy  in  this regard contained in AFO  16/2008 (Annexure A-10).    Applicant was enrolled in the  Indian Air Force on 16.06.2003. In the month    of   December, 2012,    the    applicant   was   posted   at Trivandrum.

In December, 2017, the applicant sought for posting to Kolkata on compassionate grounds due to health problems of his parents and the same was considered and approved by the Competent  Authority  and  on  21.12.2018,  the  applicant  was posted  to  337 TRU  with  effect from  13.08.2018 vide posting order dated 20.02.2018.  Thereafter, on the ground that the parents  of the  applicant are  not well  and on  account  of his mother's ill- health and other issues, the applicant submitted an application dated 27.11.2018 seeking discharge from service on compassionate grounds along with supporting documents. Even  though  the  documents  were  forwarded  along  with  the recommendations of the  Section Commander and the  Station Commander,  however,  vide  order  dated 14.03.2019, Respondent  No.   3   is   said  to  have  rejected  the  application. Challenging the same, the applicant invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at the Regional Bench, Kolkata in O.A. No. 37 of 2019    and   this   Tribunal,    by   a   detailed   order   passed   on  24.02.2021,   remanded   the   matter   back   to   the   Competent Authority for re-consideration on various grounds detailed in the  aforesaid  order  passed  on  24.02.2021.  The  matter was considered again on remand and vide the impugned order dated 28.04.2021, when the application of the  applicant was again rejected,   the   applicant  has  invoked   the  jurisdiction   of  this Tribunal (PB).

Inviting  our  attention  to  Para  2  of the  AFO 16/2008, particularly the provisions of Para 2 (a) therein, learned counsel for the applicant argues that this is a case where the applicant has made out a ground for grant of discharge on compassionate grounds and that the applicant forwarded the application for consideration   of  Competent  Authority  in  accordance   to   the requirement of law and in spite of the directions issued by this Tribunal (RB, Kolkata) on 24.02.2021  in O.A. No. 37 of 2019, again   without   recording   any   proper  justification   or   cogent reasons, the application for discharge was rejected on the same  consideration. Learned counsel argues that the grounds now added to  say that the applicant's service is required, he is a technical person and his duties are indispensable for the Air Force are incorrect and false.  It was emphasised by the learned counsel that the applicant is holding a non-technical post and the service of the applicant is not needed for the purpose of the Air Force.   It was contended that the ailments and illness of the applicant's   parents,   who   are   directly   dependent   upon   the applicant and when the absence of the applicant endangers the life  of his  parents,  discharge  on  these  void  grounds  can  be considered,  is  not  taken  note  of properly  by  the  Competent Authority.

It is the case of the applicant that inspite of the fact that in the earlier round of litigation, this Tribunal (RB, Kolkata) had directed   the   Competent   Authority   to   take   a   decision   after considering the recommendations of Section Commander and the Station Commander, again in the so-called speaking order passed on 28.04.2021 without taking note of the observations made by this Tribunal in the earlier order dated 24.02.2021, the same the reasons are repeated.   The grounds stated in the impugned   order   for   rejecting   the   application   are   not   only contrary to the mandate of AFO  16/2008 but the grounds are the same which were analysed in the earlier round of litigation and disapproved by this Tribunal.  Accordingly, contending that the   applicant   has   a   right   enshrined   under   Part-III   of  the Constitution of India to seek discharge in accordance with the policy contained in AFO  16/2008 which has not been properly appreciated    by   the    respondents,    the    applicant    prays    for interference into the matter and, in this regard, places reliance on a judgment rendered by this Bench in O.A. No. 1963 of 2017 in the case of Cpl Shaju M. Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 23.02.2022 to say that the applicant is entitled for grant of discharge   from    service    on    compassionate   grounds   in   the matter.

Respondents have refuted the aforesaid and submit that grant of discharge under the AFO  16/2008 is not a matter of right. Referring to Para 8 of the said AFO, it was argued that discharge from service cannot be claimed as a matter of right and nothing in the order shall interfere with the power of the Air Headquarters to withhold or refuse request for discharge on administrative consideration.    It was argued that the ailments of the parents of the applicant are ordinary lifestyle ailments like   hypertension,   anxiety   disorder  etc.;   the   applicant  was granted posting near his home town and no case for discharge is   made   out.  It  was  argued  that  on  the  applicant's  own showing, it is seen that the parents of the applicant suffered the ailments  since  the year  2011;  the  applicant  kept quite  from 2011 upto 2018; it was only in November 2018 that he sought for permanent discharge after completing  15 years of service and,  therefore,  the  vested  interest  of the  applicant  and  the hidden agenda in seeking discharge on compassionate grounds were not the ailments of his parents, but to earn pension and somehow wriggle-out of the contract of the employment, which warrants serving the Force for a period of 20 years.

Learned  counsel  for  the  respondents  took  us  through various   aspects   of  the   matter   including   the   reasons   that weighed    with    the    Competent   Authority    and    argued    that manpower consideration has been taken note of and in view of the scarcity of the manpower and human resources in the Air Force,    the    discharge    of   the    applicant   in    the    facts    and circumstances has been denied. It was argued by the learned counsel that Unit where the applicant is posted is very near to his native place and under these circumstances, no interference can  be  made  again  by  this  Tribunal  when  after  the  earlier remand,    the    matter   was    re-examined   by    the    Competent Authority in detail and a speaking order passed. It was argued by the  learned  counsel that an administrative  and  executive decision  taken  on  the  basis  of the  policies  and  circulars  is beyond  the   scope   of judicial  review,   until  and  unless  the procedure followed for taking the impugned action is found to be discriminatory, contrary to procedural equity or requirement ultravires  and  offends  the  requirement  of Article  14   of  the Constitution.    Learned counsel argues that in this case, as the administrative  decision has been taken  in  accordance  to  the requirement of law, no indulgence into the matter is called for.

We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  at length and perused the records.

From   the  records,   it  is  clear  that  the  applicant  had competed 15 years of service and sought voluntary discharge on account  of  his  ailment  of  his  parents.  From  the  medical documents produced by the applicant, it is seen that mother of the   applicant  is  suffering  from  some  psychological  disorder along with hypertension, obesity, diabetes and thyroid related ailments    and    his    father    is    suffering    from    hypertension, Insomnia, High Cholesterol and Uric Acid related ailments.  The applicant's   parents   are   getting  regular   treatment   from   the Department   of  Health   and   Family  Welfare,   Govt.   of  West Bengal, Kolkata and the National Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata.   The father of the applicant being a retired government servant, both the parents of the applicant are being extended the benefit of Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) for their treatment.

Even though  in  the  earlier round of litigation,  we had examined the matter in detail and after taking note of certain judgments,   particularly  the  judgments  in  the  case  of  Sgt Beylinedas Yesudas Vs.  The Chief of Air Staff and Others in O.A. No. 167 of 2013 decided by the AFT, Regional Bench at Chennai on 30.04.2014 and in Sgt Satish Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors. [0.A. No.  112 of 2017] decided by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal  on  20.12.2017,  remanded the  matter back for re-consideration by the Competent Authority,  as we found that the requirement of the policy was not appreciated properly. In the reasoned order passed when it was impugned before us in the earlier round of litigation, we took note of the requirement  of AFO 16/2008   and  after  considering  various issues including judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Tribunal, we had observed that under the AFO  16/2008, claim for discharge from service cannot be claimed as a matter of right.   The AFO empowers the Air Headquarters to refuse or grant discharge in a particular case.  The claim for discharge has to be evaluated by the Competent Authority and he has a discretion to take a decision after evaluating the difficulties of the employee in the backdrop of the requirement of administration   in   the   survey,   but   he   cannot   exercise   the discretion in an arbitrary, unjustified or malafide manner.   We found that even though the applicant did not seek discharge right from 2011 upto 2018 and in the year 2018, he was posted near his hometown and he sought voluntary retirement after 7 years only after having acquired the right to claim pension.  We found that  the  recommendation  of the  Competent Authority, namely, the Commanding Officer, and the requirement of the administration seems to have not been properly evaluated and, therefore, for re-consideration, we remanded the matter back.

Now in the impugned order, we find that even though the six    grounds    which    earlier    weighed    with    the    Competent Authority have been again crystalised as reasons but along with that, it is indicated that the applicant has been trained in the ADSO Trade. According to  the  terms  and conditions  of the engagement, he has to work for a period of 20 years; he was trained to meet the operational requirement of the organisation and in the actions of there being lack of manpower, the request as  made  cannot  be  acceded  to.  As  far  as  considering  the recommendations of the Commanding Officer and the Station Commander  are  concerned,  it  is  indicated  that these people evaluate the application with the Unit specific observations and when the matter comes to the Air Headquarters, the matter is re-examined   taking   note   of  the   requirement   of  the   entire organisation   and,   therefore,   their  recommendations  are  not final and binding and the Air Headquarters can always take a different view.

On  a  scanning  of  the  record,  we  find  that  after  the applicant   submitted   his   application   dated 27.11.2018   for discharge,  on  13.02.2019, the applicant sought permission to meet  the  Station  Commander  and  we  find  that  the  Station Commander met him on 13.02.2019 and simply noted that the application is recommended and forwarded for consideration. He did not give any reason or    justification for    his recommendation.    The only words used are  "Recommended & forwarded'.   Thereafter, the matter went to the Adjutant, Fit Lt Vinay Krishnan  on  the  same  day,  who  simply  initialled  and forwarded it to the Commanding Officer, Wg Cdr J.P.S. Verma. The   Commanding  Officer,   Wg  Cdr  Verma,   observed  in  his remarks that the individual has been interviewed on 13.02.2019.    The Commanding Officer discussed the condition of his ailing mother and he wants discharge only on account of the  ailment of his  mother. The  Commanding  Officer  simply endorsed  and  forwarded  the  matter  with  a  remark "Recommended for consideration".  The  Station  Commander also interviewed the applicant and simply remarked that the case to be taken up for release'.

In the earlier proceedings held before us in O.A. No. 37 of 2019  (RB,  Kolkata),  we  had  observed  that  in  the judgments rendered in the case of Union of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, DHOPO, New Delhi and Others Vs. Wg Cdr Subrata Das [(2020) 12 Supreme Court Cases 784] and Sgt   Beylinedas    Yesudas (supra), the   undoubted   material hardship  of the  airmen  and  the  hardship determined by the Commanding Officer of the individual, who is in close contact and is in the regular interaction with the airman concerned, should be examined by the Competent Authority and the inputs and  recommendations  of the  Commanding  Officer  are  vital, which warrant consideration at the time of discharge.    In the earlier   round   of   litigation,   we   did   not   take   note   of   the observations of the recommending officer like the Commanding Officer,  the  Station  Commander  etc.  and we  directed for re-examination of the matter in the light of the law laid down by the AFT, Chennai Regional Bench in the case of Sgt Beylinedas Yesudas (supra). We also found that the requirement of the service,   administrative  and  security  concerns  were  also  not properly addressed and, therefore, they be re-examined.  We now find that both these aspects have been taken note of and from    the    applicant's    own    showing   on    the    basis    of   the documents filed by him, we find that the Commanding Officer and    the    Station    Commander   have    simply   forwarded    the application  for  consideration  without  expressing  any  specific opinion peculiar to the applicant's requirement, which warrants special   consideration.   In   fact,   the   recommendations  of  the Competent Unit  Authorities  i.e.  the  Section  Commander and the    Station    Commander    are    all   mere    forwarding   of   the recommendations without disclosing any reason.

The respondents have, in the impugned order in Paras  5, 6 and 7, observed as under:

"AND   WHEREAS,   the   CO  and  Section   Commander  is recommending authority for forwarding a  case  to  the higher authority for final disposal as per the policy in vogue.  Each  case  is  considered  on  the  basis  of its merit   along    with   recommendations   of  the    CO   and decided by the competent authority in  terms of policy in   vogue   and   HR   state   in   the   IAF.  Each   case   is considered  and  deliberated  at  this  HQ  by  keeping  in mind the operational requirement of the organization  as  well  as  needs  of  an  individual. The recommendations of CO and Section Commander being unit specific are not binding on the competent authority.

AND  WHEREAS,  Para  8 of AFO  16/2008  stipulates that 'discharge   from   service    can    not    however, be claimed  as  matter of right and  nothing  in  this  order shall interfere with the powers of the Air Headquarters to suspend / withhold discharge temporarily or otherwise   on   compassionate   grounds   or   refuse   the same in a particular case'.

AND WHEREAS,  the Hon'ble Armed Forces  Tribunal (PB)   New  Delhi   has   ruled  in  a  similar  case   OA.   No. 1376/2018 filed by Cpl Neeraj Kumar Pal  Vs  UoI that

"We also note that the applicant is under an obligation to    serve   for   a   period    of   20   years    while    he    has completed only ten and a half years of service.  The Air HQ is the    final sanctioning authority to grant discharge from service on compassionate grounds.  We fi nd that though humanitarian issues have been given due  consideration  by  the  respondents,   as  evident  by the  extant  policy,  service  requirements  have outweighed   these    while   considering   the   applicant's case  and,  to  that  extent,  institutional  needs  override / individual requirements.  This being the situation,  we do not find any merit in the present OA."

apart from taking note of the earlier consideration, they have again    evaluated    the    matter    in    the    backdrop    of   various consideration,  requirement of the service,  requirement of the policy,  the recommendations  of the  Section  Commander and the Station Commander and have taken a decision. Once an administrative   decision   is   taken   and   the   policy   i.e.   AFO 16/2008 in Para  8, itself    gives    discretion to the    Air Headquarters to take a decision on various consideration, we are of the considered view that in the matter of judicial scrutiny or review of an administrative action or decision, this Tribunal can only evaluate the decision-making process,  the merits of the   decision   and   the   reasons   for   the   decision   cannot   be subjected to the judicial review, until and unless the decision or the  decision-making process is found  to  be in breach of the procedural    requirement,    tainted    with    malafides,    lacks    in fairness or arbitrarily taken.   In the case in hand, none of these eventualities  are   established  and  even  after  remand  of the matter back,  after re-examination,  when a decision has been taken by the Competent Authority, we find that the  scope of judicial review in such matters is very limited.

Even  though  learned  counsel  for  the  applicant  relied upon a judgment in the case of Cpl Shaju M (supra) in support of her contentions, we find that in that case, Cpl Shaju M, in the year 2016, was placed in low medical category for TIVD L3-L4  and  L4-L5  and  Chronic  Otitis  Media  Right'  incapable  of being continued in the  trade  and taking note  of his medical condition and further the fact the he was unable to continue in working  in  the  trade  and  would  not  be  eligible  for  further promotion,  we  interfered  into  the  matter.  The  case  of the applicant herein is not similar to that of the case of the Cpl Shaju  M.  In  fact,  in  the  matter  of  seeking  discharge,  the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India ez Ors.  Vs. R.P.    Yadav  [2000  AIR   SCW  2370],   had  considered  various aspects including the physical condition and finally crystalised the legal principle in the following manner:

"An incidental question that arises is whether the claim made by the respondents to be released from the force as of right  is  in  keeping   with  the  requirements  of strict discipline of the Naval Service. In our considered view the answer to the question has to be in the negative. To vest a right in a member of the Naval Force to walk out from the service at any point of time according to his sweet will is a  concept abhorrent  to  the  high standard  of discipline expected of members of defence services. The consequence in   accepting   such   contention   raised  on   behalf of  the respondents will lead to disastrous results touching upon security of the nation.  It has to be  borne  in  mind that members of the defence services including the Navy have the proud privilege of being  entrusted with the  task  of security of the Nation. It is a privilege which comes the way   of  only   selected  persons   who   have  succeeded  in entering the service and have maintained high standards of efficiency.

Thereafter,    looking   to   the   medical    condition   of  the applicant in that case, even though certain benefits were given and the question of withdrawal of option was considered but the law with regard to the discretion and the policy has been laid down, which clearly says that no person can seek release as a matter of right and it is the discretion of the Competent Authority to take a decision.

In our considered view,  the facts and circumstances of the present case are entirely different from of the case of Cpi Shaju M (supra) and do not have any application to the present case. Present is a case where the claim of the applicant has been    examined    after    our    remand    in    accordance    to    the requirement of the policy and the law and we find no infirmity or illegality in the same warranting any re-consideration.

In view of the foregoing, OA stands dismissed.  There is no  order as to costs.

Pronounced  in  open  Court  on  this 18th day of May, 2022.