Judgment on Discharge Order for Habitual Offender

In a recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India, a discharge order for a habitual offender was upheld. The case involved multiple instances of absence without valid explanation, leading to rigorous imprisonment. Despite opportunities to present a defense, the appellant failed to provide adequate justification for their actions. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of duty and accountability in the Armed Forces.

Facts

Appellant received show-cause notice for seven punishments during his service.
Appellant attributed his mistakes to family problems and promised no further errors.
General Officer Commanding recorded appellant as a habitual offender warranting discharge.
Counsel referenced a case stating red ink entries alone are insufficient for discharge.

Also Read: Property Inheritance Dispute: The Legacy of Chhotabhai Ashabhai Patel

Analysis

The appellant did not offer any explanation in the reply filed, except for vague family circumstances, despite being given adequate opportunity to present his defense.
The appellant was absent from duty on seven occasions without providing any explanation.
He was punished with rigorous imprisonment ranging from 2 days to 28 days for each instance of absence.
Being a member of the Armed Forces, he cannot take duty lightly and abstain at his will.
The order of discharge cannot be considered unjustified given his repeated absences and subsequent punishments.
The Commanding Officer has noted the appellant as a habitual offender, further justifying the discharge decision.
The enquiry conducted, as per para 5(a) of the Army Instructions, is not a regular enquiry but a preliminary one aimed at fair decision-making based on the reply filed.
The judgment in Veerendra Kumar Dubey case does not invalidate the punishment in this case, as the test of preliminary enquiry was satisfied by considering the appellant’s explanation.
The type of enquiry required depends on the specific facts of each case.
The appellant was absent from duty on seven occasions
The order of discharge of the appellant was found to be error-free