In a significant ruling by the Supreme Court, the case delves into the delicate balance between service requirements and individual rights, particularly in the context of the Indian Air Force. The judgment sheds light on the complexities surrounding employment choices within the armed forces while emphasizing the need for adherence to statutory provisions. This case sets a crucial precedent for future cases involving the intersection of military discipline and fundamental rights.
Facts
- Appellant received an order of appointment as a Probationary Officer with Bank of India on 28 July 2011.
- On 16 August 2011, the Appellant moved the AFT in Chandigarh seeking directions for an NOC and discharge from the IAF to join a civil post with Bank of India.
- AFT issued an interim direction to the IAF authorities on 18 August 2011 to provisionally issue an NOC and discharge the Appellant to enable him to take up the new assignment by 24 August 2011.
- The Appellant joined Bank of India on 24 September 2011 after a discharge order was issued on 20 September 2011 on a provisional basis.
- Appellant’s application for NOC and discharge was rejected, and he was enrolled as an Airman in the Indian Air Force on 12 January 2004.
- Appellant filed a review application on 25 May 2012, which was dismissed.
- The appellant filed writ proceedings challenging his termination.
- The termination was stayed by an order dated 17 September 2014.
- Referring to the case of Union of India v Major General Shri Kant Sharma, the High Court declared that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under Article 226.
- The appellant was advised to pursue an alternate remedy before the AFT.
Also Read: Anticipatory Bail Application in Different Cases: Landmark Judgment by the Supreme Court of India
Arguments
- The appellant believes he has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to choose his place of employment.
- The appellant applied for discharge from the Air Force on two occasions.
- The appellant’s failure to apply through proper channels is considered a procedural irregularity, not an illegality.
- The appellant seeks equitable intervention for a ‘clean’ NOC and discharge certificate to continue working at the bank where he is employed.
- Enrolled individuals in the armed forces, like the Air Force, are subject to the discipline of the force.
- Statutory provisions such as Sections 13, 14, and 15 of the Air Force Act 1950, along with Air Force Rules 7 and 9, dictate obligations during the period of engagement.
- Air Force Order 14/2008 regulates the terms for IAF members to apply for civilian employment.
- The importance of maintaining manning levels, operational preparedness, and training costs are highlighted in interpreting the law regarding Air Force members’ employment choices.
- There was deemed sufficient compliance by the appellant with the provisions of AFO 14/2008.
- The issue of pay scale parity between the Air Force and public sector banks is discussed with reference to specific orders and appointment details.
- The ‘criticality of trade’ issue, waiver of conditions, and the lack of mention of trade criticality in the denial of permission are raised.
- Legal precedents and time elapsed since the appellant’s employment with the bank in comparison to the Air Force are addressed.
- There is no general or vested right to leave service during the period of engagement.
- Applications for leaving service must be considered on a case-by-case basis.
- The appellant breached his statutory obligation by leaving the IAF without prior permission.
- This action made him liable for disciplinary action.
Also Read: Supreme Court of India Dismisses Writ Petition on Arms Export to Israel
Analysis
- The appellant’s submission that he had an unqualified right to leave the Air Force was rejected, as it would impact manning levels and operational preparedness.
- The appellant failed to comply with obligations under AFO 14/2008, which required completion of seven years of service before applying for civilian employment.
- AFO 14/2008 stipulated conditions for applying for civilian posts and required permission for online applications.
- There was a balance between the interests of the service and the individual’s desire to take civilian employment.
- The appellant was struck off the Air Force strength for joining civilian employment without authorization.
- The AFT directed Air Force authorities to consider the appellant’s application submitted in May 2011 under AFO 14/2008.
- AFO 14/2008 governed the case and emphasized the criticality of trades and the exigencies of service.
- NOCs for civilian employment were issued by Air HQs based on service exigencies and cadre requirements.
- The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution for equitable jurisdiction in the case.
- The appellant breached AFO 14/2008 by applying for civilian employment without approval.
- Enrolment in the Air Force is conducted through the statutory form AI of the First Schedule.
- The Air Force Act 1950 imposes restrictions on the fundamental rights of Air Force members to ensure proper discharge of duties and discipline maintenance.
- Enrolment process requires the individual to be made aware of the conditions of service and provide consent before signing on the enrolment.
- An individual is deemed to have been duly enrolled after receiving pay for three months and being on the unit’s rolls.
- On being attested under Section 16, individuals must subscribe to an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, service in the Air Force, and obedience to all commands.
- Tenure in the Air Force is at the pleasure of the President.
- Retirement, release, or discharge from service of Air Force personnel is prescribed by the relevant authority as per the Air Force Act 1950.
- The Central government is empowered under Section 189 to make rules for the effective implementation of the Act.
- Reinduction of the appellant into the IAF after eight years is not fruitful.
- Reinduction would only result in subjecting the appellant to disciplinary action.
- The direction for reinduction should not be unconditional.
- It is not in the appellant’s interest to be reinducted at this point.
Also Read: National Task Force for Healthcare Safety: Ensuring Dignity and Protection for Medical Professionals
Decision
- Final NOC and discharge to be issued to the appellant within three months of receipt of this order.
- Appellant to deposit a sum of Rs 3 lakhs with the Union of India within two months of receiving the judgment.
- No other points raised in Civil Appeal No 4607 of 2019.
- No order as to costs in this appeal.
- Final NOC and discharge certificate to be issued after the deposit is made within one month.
Case Title: AMIT KUMAR ROY Vs. UNION OF INDIA .
Case Number: C.A. No.-004605-004606 / 2019
