Supreme Court of India
NO.2809759H EX-RECRUIT BABANNA MACHCHEDversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 95
- Decided
- 9 February 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The dismissal orders are vitiated for non‑consideration of material evidence and the appellants are to be reinstated.
Summary
Four ex‑recruits of the Maratha Light Infantry were dismissed in 2013 on the ground that they had secured enrollment under the Unit Headquarters Quota by producing forged relationship certificates. The appellants contended that they had applied as general‑category candidates and never submitted any such certificates. The Supreme Court examined the applications, which showed no claim to any reserved category and no submission of relationship documents, and noted that the discharge orders and the Armed Forces Tribunal’s judgment failed to consider this material explanation. Relying on principles of natural justice and precedents that orders rendered without considering material evidence are vitiated, the Court held that the dismissal orders were invalid. Consequently, the Court set aside the discharge orders and ordered reinstatement of the appellants with full benefits.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants were recruited under the reserved category of relatives of servicemen/ex‑servicemen.
- Whether the appellants produced any relationship certificate at the time of enrollment.
- Whether the dismissal orders are legally valid given the non‑consideration of the appellants' explanation.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Service LawDismissal from serviceFalse relationship certificateRelatives of servicemen/ex‑servicemenGeneral categoryMaterial evidenceNon‑consideration of relevant materialPrinciples of Natural Justice
Judgment
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 242 : 2024 INSC 95
No.2809759H Ex-Recruit Babanna Machched
v.
Union of India and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 644-645 of 2017)
09 February 2024
[Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The appellants were dismissed/discharged from service on the
ground that at the time of their enrollment in the Army through
Maratha Light Infantry Regimental Centre under the Unit
Headquarters Quota in December, 2009 they had produced false
relationship certificates which upon verification were found to be
manipulated and false. The points which arise for consideration are:
(i) Whether the appellants were enrolled/recruited by giving benefit
of relationship with the servicemen/ex-servicemen; (ii) Whether
the appellants have produced any relationship certificate(s); (iii)
Whether their discharge/dismissal from service is bad in law for
non-consideration of their explanation.
Headnotes
Service Law – Dismissal from service – Allegation of producing
false relationship certificate – The appellants contended that
they were recruited under the general category and not on
priority basis as relatives of any servicemen or ex-servicemen;
and they have not produced any relationship certificate and,
therefore, they cannot be charged for obtaining enrollment/
recruitment on the basis of fake relationship certificates:
Held: The appellants have brought on record zerox copies of their
applications submitted for the purposes of enrollment/recruitment
– The application(s) nowhere mentions that they have produced
any relationship certificate(s) – The application(s) thus clearly
establishes that the appellants appear to have applied as a
general category candidate(s) against the surplus seats/vacancies
remaining unfilled after considering the priority/reserved quota for
relatives of servicemen/ex-servicemen, etc – In such a situation,
when they have not claimed any enrollment/recruitment on the basis
of relationship with servicemen/ex-servicemen, obviously there was
no occasion for them to submit any relationship certificate – In
the discharge certificate, there is no mention of any inquiry being
* Author
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 243
No.2809759H Ex-Recruit Babanna Machched v.
Union of India and Ors.
conducted or find out as to whether the appellants had actually
produced relationship certificates for the purpose of enrollment/
recruitment – Tribunal had affirmed the discharge/dismissal order
in a casual manner without taking note of the crucial point that
appellants had applied under general category and not as relatives
of servicemen/ex-servicemen – Thus, the orders of discharge/
dismissal of the appellants stand vitiated for non-consideration of
the material aspect – Thus, the discharge/dismissal orders of the
appellants set aside. [Paras 17, 19, 20, 24, 27]
Case Law Cited
S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, [1990] 1 Suppl. SCR
44 : (1990) 4 SCC 594; Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief
Election Commissioner, [1978] 2 SCR 272 : (1978) 1
SCC 405 – referred to.
Ex Sig. Man Kanhaiya Kumar vs. Union of India and
Ors., [2018] 1 SCR 679 : (2018) 14 SCC 279; S. Muthu
Kumaran vs. Union of India and Ors., [2017] 1 SCR
550 : (2017) 4 SCC 609 – held inapplicable.
List of Acts
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
List of Keywords
Service Law; Dismissal from service; False relationship
certificate; Relatives of servicemen/ex-servicemen; General
category; Material evidence; Non-consideration of relevant
material; Principles of Natural Justice.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.644-645 of
2017
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2014 in O.A. No.159 of
2013/05.06.2014 in M.A. No.247 of 2014 in O.A. No.159 of 2013 of
the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi, Circuit Bench
at Para Regimental Training Centre, Bangalore and order dated
18.11.2015 in M.A. No.373 of 2015 in R.A. No.15 of 2015 in O.A.
No.159 of 2013, S.R.A. No.15 of 2015
With
Civil Appeal Nos.652-653, 642-643 And 654-655 of 2017
244 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Vinay Navare, Suhaskumar Kadam for M/s. Black & White Solicitors,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, R. Bala, Sr. Adv., V. V. V. Pattabhi Ram,
Anmol Chandan, Prahlad Singh, Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Ms. Poornima
Singh, Ashwin Joseph, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Mukesh Kumar Maroria,
Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Pankaj Mithal, J.
1. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.
2. Instructions were issued from time to time with regard to enrollment
into Army under the Unit Headquarters Quota (UHQ). The instructions
as revised upto the year 1978, provided that Regiments/Corps have
sanction to enroll 15 per cent of the total yearly demand released by
the Additional Directorate of Recruiting to Zonal Recruiting Offices.
This percentage was increased to 25 during the year 1981-82 and
in March, 1983 this quota was further increased to 50 per cent.
Since the Regiments/Corps could not fill up such large number
of vacancies, to facilitate the enrollment, priority was provided to
certain categories of personnel which included sons and grandsons
of servicemen and ex-servicemen; brothers and other near relatives
of those killed in battle or died in service; wards who were fully
dependent upon servicemen or ex-servicemen; sportsmen of merit,
and those for whom there was a special recruitment, e.g., Ladakh
Scouts, Cavalry, Gorkha, Para, President Body Guard Regiments
etc. It was further provided that Unit Headquarters Quota Enrollment
shall give priority to the above categories and in case vacancies for
recruitment remain available with Regimental Centre, personnel from
open category based on merit may be taken.
3. In the light of the above instructions for recruitment under the Unit
Headquarters, a news item was published for the purposes of
recruitment inviting applications under the Unit Headquarters Quota.
It appears that a large number of candidates including the appellants
applied. The appellants were selected and were enrolled in the Army
by the Maratha Light Infantry Regimental Centre (‘MLIRC’). After they
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 245
No.2809759H Ex-Recruit Babanna Machched v.
Union of India and Ors.
had put in nearly three years of service, a show cause notice was
issued to several of them alleging that they had obtained enrollment
in the Army either on the basis of the fake sports person certificate
or on the basis of false relationship certificate. On consideration of
the reply of those persons, the services of about 52 of them were
terminated. However, after some litigation, candidates belonging
to the category of sportsmen of merit, were all reinstated. In regard
to the fake relationship certificate, services of about 20 persons
including the appellants were terminated out of which 4 persons
are before this Court.
4. The case of all the four appellants is identical and is based upon
similar facts and as such the appeals of all four of them were taken
up together for consideration and are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
5. In these appeals the challenge is to the common judgment and order
of the Armed Forces Tribunal1, Kochi, dated 6.03.2014, whereby
the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the discharge certificate,
dismissing the appellants from service for adopting fraudulent means.
Consequently, refusing the prayer of the appellants to reinstate them.
6. Notice in these appeals were issued only because the appellants
before this Court wished to press that the appellants had never
applied for enrollment in any reserved category. This was done on
the statement of the counsel for the appellants which stands recorded
in the order dated 08.03.2016.
7. In view of the above factual position, the only question for our
consideration in these appeals is whether the appellants had applied
and were selected as general category candidates or were placed
in any of the reserved category.
8. Briefly stated, after the appellants were enrolled/recruited in the Army,
they were served with identical show cause notices contending that
they have been enrolled in the Army by producing false relationship
certificates and the documents produced by them on verification have
been found to be fake/forged. Thus, calling upon them as to why they
should not be dismissed from service. In response to the show cause
notice, all the appellants submitted their response on identical lines
1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’
246 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
that they were recruited in the Army after they have passed all exams
and standards; they were not recruited on the basis of the claim that
they were relatives of any serving or ex-servicemen personnel rather
they had applied under the general category and as such there was
no occasion for them to have produced any relationship certificate. In
other words, they clearly denied having produced any certificate of
relationship for the purposes of recruitment and as such contended
that they cannot be charged of producing fake certificates.
9. The Maratha Light Infantry Regimental Centre by similar orders
dismissed all the appellants from service with effect from 9.05.2013.
The discharge certificate issued to each of the appellant in unequivocal
terms stated that they are being dismissed from service for the
reason that they got themselves enrolled by adopting fraudulent
means, referring to the fake relationship certificates as mentioned
in the show cause notices.
10. In other words, the appellants were dismissed/discharged from
service on the ground that at the time of their enrollment in the
Army through Maratha Light Infantry Regimental Centre under the
Unit Headquarters Quota in December, 2009 they had produced
false relationship certificates which upon verification were found to
be manipulated and false.
11. The departmental appeal(s) against the aforesaid discharge/dismissal
also failed whereupon the appellants preferred Original Applications
before the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Original Applications were
dismissed by the Tribunal and so were the review petitions.
12. The appellants have thus preferred these appeals under Section
31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 before this Court inter
alia contending that the appellants were recruited under the general
category and not on priority basis as relatives of any servicemen
or ex-servicemen; and they have not produced any relationship
certificate and, therefore, they cannot be charged for obtaining
enrollment/recruitment on the basis of fake relationship certificates.
The authorities as well as the Tribunal have not considered the
above explanation of the appellants and only on the basis that the
certificates alleged to have been produced by the appellants on
verification have been found to be fake/forged, without recording
any finding that the appellants had in effect produced any such
certificate, upheld the order of discharge/dismissal.
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 247
No.2809759H Ex-Recruit Babanna Machched v.
Union of India and Ors.
13. The defence of the respondents is that the enrollment/recruitment
under the Army Headquarters Quota is only for the relatives of the
servicemen/ ex-servicemen and that there is no general category in
which the appellants could have been recruited. It is also contended
that the appellants are taking the above grounds of enrollment/
recruitment under general category and of non-production of
relationship certificate as an afterthought as on identical plea the
sports persons were directed to be reinstated.
14. After hearing Shri Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel, appearing
as a lead lawyer for the appellants and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned
Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, as narrated above, the following
points arise for our consideration:
(i) Whether the appellants were enrolled/recruited by giving benefit
of relationship with the servicemen/ex-servicemen;
(ii) Whether the appellants have produced any relationship
certificate(s);
(iii) Whether their discharge/dismissal from service is bad in law
for non-consideration of their explanation.
15. The respondents have relied upon a newspaper clipping which was
neither part of the record before the Tribunal or of these appeals
but was passed over to this Court for the purposes of its perusal.
The newspaper clipping dated 27.9.2009 as appearing in Deccan
Herald as shown to this Court during the course of hearing is not
part of the record. The respondents made no efforts to bring it on
record at any stage, not even before this Court except for placing
it across the Bar for our perusal. In such a scenario, it is not at all
appropriate for this Court to consider and rely upon it. Nonetheless, a
plain reading of it would reveal that it is not an advertisement inviting
applications for enrollment/recruitment under the Unit Headquarters
Quota. It is simply a news item published in the newspaper informing
that such an exercise for enrollment/recruitment under the Unit
Headquarters Quota is going to take place without specifically stating
that general category candidates who do not have any relationship
with servicemen/ex-servicemen are prohibited or barred from applying.
On the contrary, the guidelines/instructions for recruitments under
the enrollment/recruitment in Paragraph 7 clearly mentions about
open category recruitment. It reads thus:
248 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“7. Open Category: In case of Additional vacancies
for recruitment available with Regimental Centre open
category of personnel based on merit may be taken
provided they meet the ___________.”
16. A simple reading of the above Paragraph 7 clearly belies the stand
taken by the defence that the above enrollment/recruitment was only
meant for the relatives of the servicemen/ex-servicemen and was
not open for the general category.
17. The appellants have brought on record zerox copies of their
applications submitted for the purposes of enrollment/recruitment. In
Part-II of the application(s) under the heading ‘Documentation’ they
have not claimed status of a relative of servicemen/ex-servicemen,
NCC, Sports persons rather they have clearly stated to be of
general category. The application(s) nowhere mentions that they
have produced any relationship certificate(s). The application(s) thus
clearly establishes that the appellants appear to have applied as a
general category candidate(s) against the surplus seats/vacancies
remaining unfilled after considering the priority/reserved quota for
relatives of servicemen/ex-servicemen, etc. In such a situation, when
they have not claimed any enrollment/recruitment on the basis of
relationship with servicemen/ex-servicemen, obviously there was no
occasion for them to submit any relationship certificate.
18. In response to the show cause notice which stated that the
appellants have obtained enrollment/recruitment on false relationship
certificates which on verification have been confirmed to be fake,
the appellants have denied producing any such certificates as they
never applied under any priority category as a relative of servicemen/
ex-servicemen but in the general category. The discharge certificate
simply states that the appellants are dismissed from service under
the orders of Commandant for the reason of obtaining enrollment/
recruitment by fraudulent means referring to submission of fake
relationship certificates. The order of the Commandant states that at
the time of enrollment/recruitment in December, 2009 under the Unit
Headquarters Quota at the Maratha Light Infantry Regimental Centre,
the relationship certificates of the appellants upon verification from
records have been found to be manipulated and false. Therefore,
the appellants had obtained enrollment/recruitment by fraudulent
means and their services are liable to be terminated. Accordingly,
the appellants were dismissed.
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 249
No.2809759H Ex-Recruit Babanna Machched v.
Union of India and Ors.
19. In the above discharge certificate or the order of the Commandant,
there is no whisper that any inquiry was conducted to ascertain
or find out as to whether the appellants had actually produced
relationship certificates for the purposes of enrollment/recruitment
in the Army. No finding has been recorded by the respondents that
the appellants had as of fact, produced such certificates or that their
explanation claiming that no such certificates were furnished by them
is completely false. In effect, the authorities have not dealt with the
above explanations/claims of the appellants.
20. A reading of the order of the Tribunal also shows that the above
aspect or the contention of the appellants was not dealt with by
the Tribunal. The Tribunal in a casual and routine manner affirmed
the discharge/dismissal order simply holding that the relationship
certificates produced by the appellants have been found to be fake
even upon verification. The Tribunal also seems to have lost sight of
the crucial point of the appellants that they have applied under the
general category and not as relatives of servicemen/ex-servicemen.
They have not produced the alleged certificate(s) which could be
held to be fake. Accordingly, the core issue arising in the matter was
missed not only by the authorities concerned but by the Tribunal as
well. Thus, the order(s) of discharge/dismissal of the appellants and
that of Tribunal stand vitiated for non-consideration of the material
aspect.
21. In S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India2, it has been categorically
laid down by this Court that an order passed without consideration
of the material evidence or the plea would be violative of Principles
of Natural Justice and would stand vitiated for non-consideration of
the relevant material, plea or the evidence.
22. At the same time in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi3, it has been provided that the validity of
the order impugned has to be tested on the basis of the reasoning
contained therein and that the authorities are not supposed to
supplement the same by means of extraneous material or affidavit
before the courts.
2 [1990] 1 Suppl. SCR 44 : (1990) 4 SCC 594
3 [1978] 2 SCR 272 : (1978) 1 SCC 405
250 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
23. In the case at hand, it was not the case of the respondents ever that
the vacancies on which the appellants have been enrolled/recruited
were only supposed to be filled up by the relatives of the servicemen/
ex-servicemen and not by a general category person or that the
posts advertised were only for the alleged reserved category. They
never even took any defence based upon the newspaper clipping as
referred to earlier. This is a subsequent improvement in their defence
which as discussed earlier do not stand established. It is nothing
but supplementing the reasoning of discharge/dismissal which is not
contained in the order impugned. It is thus not permissible in law in
view of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra).
24. In the end, we sum up our conclusions as under: -
(i) The recruitment under the Headquarter Quota was not confined
to the priority/reserved class rather it was open for general
category also to a limited extent;
(ii) There is no material on record to establish that the appellants had
produced any relationship certificate to obtain enrollment; and
(iii) The discharge/dismissal of the appellants from service is vitiated
for non-consideration of their specific case that they have
actually not produced any relationship certificate for selection/
recruitment as they never applied in the reserved category.
25. The decision in Ex Sig. Man Kanhaiya Kumar vs. Union of India
and Ors.4 as cited from the side of the respondents has no application
in the present case in as much as in the said case the fraudulent
enrollment in the Army was admitted to the appellants to be on the
basis of fake relationship certificate. There is no dispute to the ratio
laid down in the above case that the authorities had the power of
punishment/dismissal/removal of the candidate in the event the
enrollment/recruitment had been obtained by fraudulent means or
on the basis of fake relationship certificate.
26. Similarly, the case of S. Muthu Kumaran vs. Union of India and
Ors.5 is of no help to the respondents as the dismissal therein under
the Army Act was on the ground of fraudulent recruitment which was
4 [2018] 1 SCR 679 : (2018) 14 SCC 279
5 [2017] 1 SCR 550 : (2017) 4 SCC 609
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 251
No.2809759H Ex-Recruit Babanna Machched v.
Union of India and Ors.
found to be proved and no perversity was found in the order of the
Tribunal affirming the dismissal order which was modified/substituted
to that of discharge.
27. In view of what have been said above and the legal position, as
referred, the discharge/dismissal order of the appellants is certainly
invalid for want of non-consideration of the plea taken by the
appellants. Accordingly, we have no option but to set aside the
impugned orders of discharge/dismissal dated 9.5.2013 and the
judgment(s) and order(s) dated 06.03.2014 and 18.11.2015 passed
by the Armed Forces Tribunal. The appellants shall be reinstated
with all consequential benefits.
28. The appeals are allowed as aforesaid with no order as to costs.
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan Result of the case:
Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Service Law"Sign in to search