Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1715 (GAU)

Tiatemsu S/o Shri Pangjungmanen v. Union Of India

2024-12-05

MANISH CHOUDHURY, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2024
ORDER : (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 6th April, 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Guwahati (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 with the prayer to set aside and quash the discharge order dated 12.11.2015 issued by the 17th Assam Regiment and thereafter, to reinstate him in service or alternatively, grant the invalid pension along with other consequential benefits to him, has been dismissed. 2. The brief of the case is that the petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army (Assam Regiment) on 21.03.2005. While serving in the Army service, the petitioner moved an application on 20th September, 2015 for voluntary discharge from service due to his domestic/family problems. Later on, he was advised for counseling and the Commandant Officer of the Unit counseled the petitioner informing him about pros and cons of his request for discharge from service. The petitioner was specifically informed that since he has rendered only 10 years and few months of service, he will not be granted any pensionary benefits having not completed his minimum 15 years of pensionable service. However, the petitioner was not convinced and insisted discharge from service and pursuant to that, he was discharged from service vide impugned discharge order dated 12.11.2015. The Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondent, has dismissed the application preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the discharge order by the impugned order. The relevant extract of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder :- 11. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material placed on record. 12. Perusal of records/documents reveals that applicant submitted an application on 20.09.2015 for voluntarily discharge from service due to his domestic/family problems. The applicant also signed a certificate dated 24.09.2015 stating that he will not withdraw his application for voluntary retirement under any circumstances. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material placed on record. 12. Perusal of records/documents reveals that applicant submitted an application on 20.09.2015 for voluntarily discharge from service due to his domestic/family problems. The applicant also signed a certificate dated 24.09.2015 stating that he will not withdraw his application for voluntary retirement under any circumstances. The Assam Records vide letter dated 17.10.2015 advised to the unit of the applicant and Commanding Officer of the unit counseled about the pros and cons of his request for discharge as applicant has rendered 10 years, 7 months and 22 days of service and he will not be granted any pensionary benefits having not completed his minimum 15 years of pensionable service. The counseling/interview of the applicant by the Commanding Officer of the unit was video-graphed. 13. The personal application/undertaking of the applicant for his voluntary discharge from service on compassionate ground and videography of interview/counseling by the Commanding Officer of the unit established that applicant has himself applied for his discharge from service by submitting personal applicant and he has not been forcefully discharged from service by forged signature made on the blank papers taken from him during his unsound mental condition, as alleged by the applicant. 14. The medical examination of the applicant was carried out in September, 2015 and applicant was found physically and mentally fit in SHAPE-1 as per medical board proceedings dated 21.09.2015 which establishes that applicant was discharged from service in fit medical condition, SHAPE-1. Therefore, applicant’s prayer that he was not in fit medical condition at the time of discharge from service, he be granted invalid pension through an Invaliding Medical Board, is not substantial and is therefore, rejected. 15. Since the applicant has rendered only 10 years, 7 months and 22 days of service in the Army before his discharge from service, he is not entitled for service pension having not rendered 15 years of qualifying pensionable service in terms of Para 132 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961 (Part-1), wherein 15 years of qualifying service is mandatory for grant of service pension. 16. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality, arbitrariness or any forged action/documentation on the part of the respondents due to any personal enmity in discharging the applicant from service. 16. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality, arbitrariness or any forged action/documentation on the part of the respondents due to any personal enmity in discharging the applicant from service. The Original Application is devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that he was forced to seek voluntary discharge from Army Services under duress. A contention was raised that the petitioner never applied for discharge on compassionate ground and the signatures of him were obtained on the discharge application and other documents during his illness. It was also contended by the petitioner before the Tribunal that he became patient of severe depression with psychiatric symptoms. However, after recovering from that situation, he moved application to the respondents on 05.10.2018 to either reinstate him in service treating his discharge illegal or to give invalid pension and other benefits having discharged on medical grounds but the respondents have not paid any heed and thereafter, the petitioner again moved an application on 29.11.2018 but failed to get any response from the respondent authorities. 4. The Tribunal after considering the said contentions and after taking into consideration the stand of the respondents, has dismissed the Original Application vide the impugned order by giving reasons which has already been taken into consideration in the earlier part of this order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Section 105 of Mental Health Care Act, 2017 and Section 120 of the said Act, has argued that if during any judicial process before any competent court, proof of mental illness is produced and is challenged by the other party, the court shall refer the same for further scrutiny to the concerned Board and the Board is required to submit its opinion after examining the person concerned. It is also contended that the provisions of Mental Health Care Act, 2017 shall have overriding effect on other laws. However, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter. 6. After careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, we find that no such argument was advanced on behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal. 7. Be that as it may. However, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter. 6. After careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, we find that no such argument was advanced on behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal. 7. Be that as it may. We have gone through the contents of the representations filed on behalf of the petitioner to the respondents with the prayer for reinstating him in service or grant of invalid pension benefit on medical ground. However, it appears that in the representation said to have been filed on 05.10.2018, there is no whisper that at the time when the petitioner was forced to put his signatures on the discharge application he was suffering from severe depression with psychiatric symptoms. It is only mentioned that the application for discharge and other documents were signed by him during illness. However, in the subsequent representation said to have been filed in November, 2018, he has alleged that he was not provided any treatment from the unit during his illness and therefore, he put his signatures on the blank papers without knowing that the same would be used for discharging him from service because he was seriously ill both physically and mentally. Except such a vague averment, nothing was produced by the petitioner in support of his claim that he was mentally ill. Along with this petition, the petitioner has produced a Certificate dated 10.09.2018 issued by the Office of the Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, Dimapur, Government of Nagaland wherein it is certified that the petitioner is a case of severe depression with psychiatric symptoms. However, from the said Certificate, it cannot be gathered that at the time when he was in service of Indian Army and suffering from illness, he was under severe depression with psychiatric symptoms. 8. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is not suffering from any illegality. Hence, no case for interference is made out. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed.