✦ Rajasthan High Court · 06 Nov 2006

RAJENDRA SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

Case Details Rajasthan High Court · 06 Nov 2006
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Decided
06 Nov 2006
Length
1,023 words

Summary

A structured summary for this judgment hasn’t been prepared yet. The full text is below.

Precedent status

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

Why is this linked?

Original judgment text

learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Karnataka High Court in the case of S.K. Katoch Vs. Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and others, reported in 2002 LAB I.C. 1930. (3) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Union of India has categorically stated that they have issued show cause notice dated 09.07.98 but the petitioner refused to accept the same. It is also denied that during custody, signatures on blank papers were obtained by the respondents and the petitioner was rightly dismissed from service under the provisions of Army Act 20(3) vide dismissal order dated 11.07.98. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his submissions has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ex. L/NK Rameshwar Lal Vs. The Union of India & Ors, decided on

17.04.2002 and reported in 2002(3) WLC(Raj.) 537, wherein it was held that discharge on ground of petitioner being a security suspect, no case of violation of statutory provisions, Section 20 or Rule 17 of Army Rules, 1954 not attracted. Thus, in view of the ratio decided by this Court in the aforementioned case, no case of interference is made out. I have considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and have also gone through the judgments referred by the learned counsels in support of their submissions. It is not disputed that the conduct of the petitioner was suspected and as alleged by the (4) petitioner that he was in custody for a period of about one year and the wife of the petitioner filed a D.B. Habeas Corpus petition before this Court as mentioned herein above, wherein notices were issued by this Court. It appears that after knowing the fact that the petitioner's wife filed a habeas corpus petition, the proceedings were initiated for dismissal of the petitioner from service. It is also not disputed that vide telegram Annexure-1, the wife of the petitioner was informed that the petitioner has been dismissed from service. After release of the petitioner from custody, the habeas corpus petition filed before this Court was dismisses as having become infructuous on 17.07.98. It appears that show cause notice was issued on 09.07.98 and the petitioner has allegedly refused to accept the same, though the petitioner was in custody of the respondents and the dismissal order has been passed on

11.07.98. I have gone through the judgment rendered by the Karnataka High Court in the case of S.K. Katoch (supra), referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein the employee in department of defence- Offence alleged to be committed under Section 64(e)- No sufficient evidence on record to frame any (5) charges- Dismissal of petitioner from service invoking power under Section 20 r/w Rule 17 instead of seeking reference for court-martial- Not proper and liable to be set aside. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ex. L/NK Rameshwar Lal Vs. The Union of India & Ors (supra). In the aforementioned case, the respondents have complied with the provisions of Rule 17 by giving a show cause notice. Here in the instant case, in the show cause notice which was issued on 09.07.98, no reference for court-martial has been made and on 11.07.98, order of dismissal from service has been passed. It appears that upon filing of the habeas corpus by the wife of the petitioner, dismissal order has been passed in haste without complying with the mandatory provisions of law. Thus, in view of the settled preposition of law, the dismissal order dated 11.07.98 is per se illegal and has been passed without any basis and that too by way of issuing telegram to the wife of the petitioner, which deserves to be quashed and set-aside and the same is hereby quashed and set-aside. (6) Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. However, the respondents are at liberty to do needful after following the due process of law and after providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. /KKC/ (K.S. RATHORE),J.

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Rajasthan High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments