"Discipline is hallmark of Armed Forces": Supreme Court refuses relief to army driver who overstayed leave

Being disciplined is an intrinsic part of the Armed Forces service and any leeway in this regard sends a wrong message, the Supreme Court stated on Friday. [Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad vs Union of India].A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal observed that gross indiscipline by those serving in the forces cannot be tolerated.The top court made the observation while upholding a mechanical transport driver's dismissal from army service for taking excess leaves without notice.The Court found that the driver, a former sepoy, appeared to be a habitual offender and that he had remained out of line for far too long by seeking condonation of his leave. "Such gross indiscipline on the part of the appellant who was a member of the Armed Forces could not be countenanced. He remained out of line far too often for seeking condonation of his absence of leave, this time, for a prolonged period of 108 days which if accepted, would have sent a wrong signal to others in service. One must be mindful of the fact that discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of service," the Court said. .The bench, therefore, upheld a February 2015 order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Lucknow Regional Bench dismissing the driver from service. The tribunal had refused to interfere with two orders passed by a Court of Inquiry by which the driver was dismissed from service for overstaying the leave granted to him without sufficient cause. He had been charged under Section 39b of the Army Act..In an appeal before the Supreme Court, the driver's counsel argued that the punishment was grossly disproportionate to the offence. The counsel for the respondent-authorities, however, countered that the driver was a habitual offender who had pleaded guilty. Therefore, he cannot now be allowed to renege on the same by questioning the entire process, it was stressed..The top court, at the outset, noted that the driver had not placed any document on record to justify his claim that he was absent because he had to tend to his ailing wife. Rather, the Court found that the driver had only made a bald statement to such effect while making submissions before the Court of Inquiry in 1999.The Court also observed that the punishment handed down was not graver than the one contemplated under the Army Act."The punishment of dismissal from service on conviction by Court Martial has been treated as a lesser punishment vis-à-vis the punishment of imprisonment for any period below 14 years ... sub-section (4) of Section 120 clearly states that a SCM can pass any sentence as contemplated under the Act," the Court noted..The top court underscored that a summary court martial is empowered with sufficient discretion when it comes to imposing punishment for offences depending on the nature and gravity of the infraction. The Court, therefore, rejected the driver's contention that the punishment meted out to him was disproportionate. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed. In a stern conclusion, the bench added that the former sepoy did not deserve any leniency for his conduct. "The appellant had been taking too many liberties during his service and despite several punishments awarded to him earlier, ranging from imposition of fine to rigorous imprisonment, he did not mend his ways. This was his sixth infraction for the very same offence. Therefore, he did not deserve any leniency by infliction of a punishment lesser than that which has been awarded to him," the Court's judgment stated. .Advocate Shiv Kant Pandey appeared for the former sepoy, Madan Prasad. Senior Advocate R Balasubramanian represented the Central government and the Army..[Read Judgment]