Holding

Discharge of a JCO on the ground of medical unfitness for further service must be made only on the recommendation of an Invalidating Board as mandated by Rule 13(3)(i)(ii); therefore the respondent’s discharge was illegal.

Summary

The case concerned a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) who, after being placed in a permanent low medical category, was discharged from the Indian Army without the recommendation of an Invalidating Board. The respondent argued that under Army Rule 13(3)(i)(ii) a discharge on the ground of being "medically unfit for further service" requires such a recommendation, and that the discharge was therefore illegal. The High Court agreed and set aside the discharge. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme of the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954, particularly the table appended to Rule 13, and held that the rule unambiguously mandates an Invalidating Board recommendation for discharge on medical unfitness, irrespective of the low‑medical‑category status. The Court rejected the contention that Army Order 46/80 could override this statutory requirement. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s view that the discharge was procedurally invalid and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the recommendation of an Invalidating Board is a condition precedent for the discharge of a Junior Commissioned Officer placed in a permanent low medical category on the ground of medical unfitness for further service.
Whether Army Order 46/80 can override the procedure prescribed in Army Rule 13(3)(i)(ii).

Legislation cited

Army Act, 1950s. 18, s. 19, s. 191, s. 22
Army Rules, 1954s. Rule 13

Subjects

Army RulesDischargeInvalidating BoardMedical unfitnessJunior Commissioned OfficerAdministrative lawProcedural fairnessArmy Order 46/80Statutory interpretation

Judgment

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 879

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. A
v.
RAJPAL Sll\IGH
(Civil Appeal No. 6!>87 of 2008)

NOVEMBER 7·, 2008 ·.
.B
· [C.K. THAKKER AND ·o.K. JAIN, JJ.]

Army Service:.

Army Rules, 1954; r. 13(2A), 13(3)(i), (iifand (iii): c
Junior Commissioned Officer placed in low medical
category (Permanent) - Incumbent expressing his willingness
to continue in service - Release Medical Board
recommending discharge of incumbent from service :...
Challenge to - High Court holding discharge of incumbent D
illegal in terms of r. 13(3)(i)(ii) of the Rules since it was done
without the recommendations/holding of Invalidating Board
. - Review Petition dismissed by High Court - Correctness of
- Held: For discharge on medical 9rounds, clause (/)(//) of
· the table appended to r. 13 of the Rules clearly and E
unambiguously stipulates that discharge in such cases. has
to be carried out only as per recommi9ndations of Invalidating
Board - Authorities bound to follow the prescribed rule while
discharging army personnel from service on medical grounds
- Order of discharge passed by the authority without F
subjecting the incumbent to Invalidating Board, would fall
foul of the prescribed statutory rule - Although, discharge is
purportedly shown to be also on account of non-availability
of sheltered appointment but the main ground for discharge
was on account of permanent low mecfical category- Hence, G
the High Court rightly held that the discharge was not in
accordance with the prescribed procedure and, therefore,
illega.1- Interpretation of Statutes -Army Act, 1950- s.191.

879 H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAJPAL SINGH 881

of the Table, appended to the rule 13, the manner of A
discharge is clearly laid out. It is plain that a discharge
on the ground of having been found "medically unfit for
further service" is specifically dealt with in Column (I) (ii)
of the Table, which stipulates that discharge in such a
case is to be carried out only on the recommendation of 8
the Invalidating Board. [Paira 18] [895-E-H; 896-A-C]
1:3. It is well settled rule of administrative law that an
executive authority must be rigorously held to the
standards by which it professes its actions to be judged
and it must scrupulously ,observe those standards on C
pain of invalidation of an act in violaticm of them. [Para
20] [896-F]
Vitera/Ii vs. Saton 359 U.S. 535: Law Ed (Second
series) 1012, referred to. o
1.4. It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of a
Statute that only those cases or situations can be
covered under a residual ht~ad, which are not covered
under a specific head. It is, therefore, clear that only those
cases of discharge would fall within the ambit of the E
residual head, which are not covered under the preceding
specific heads. In other words, if a Junior Commissioned
Officer is to be discharged from the service on the
ground of "medically unfit for further service",
irrespective of the fact whether he is or was in a low F
medical category, his order of discharge can be made
only on the recommendation of an Invalidating Board.
The said rule being clear and unambiguous is capable of
only this interpretation and no other. [Para 18] [895-H; 896-
A, B, C] G
1.5. This Court is in complete agreement with the
High Court that where a JCO is sought to be discharged
on the ground of medical unfitm~ss for further service, his
case has to be dealt with strictlly in accordance with the
procedure contemplated in Clause I (ii) in Column 2 of the H
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

· A .Table appended to r.13 of the Rules. Any order of
· discharge passed without subjecting him to Invalidating
.Board would fall foul of the said statutory rule. [Para 22] .
[897-E-F] .
.· . '·

t.6. Appellants were bound to follow Rule 13 (3) (I)
8
(ii),; more. so having placed the. respondent in low medical .
category (permanent) for a, period ·of two years from
October; .2001 he was discharged from service on 31st
August, 2002, relying on the recommendation of the,: Re-
categorisation Board held on 24th October, 2001. As
C noted in the show cause notice, the said Board had
placed the respondent in "permanent low medical
category". Be that as it may, the main ground of discharge
being medical ·unfitness for further service, the appellants
were bound to follow the prescribed rule. [Para 19] [896-
D D-E] . .

Sukhdev Singh & Ors. vs. Bhagatram. Sardar Singh .
Raghuvanshi & Anr., (1975) 1 SCC .421; Dr. Amarjit Singh
Ahluwalia vs. The State of Punjab & Ors., (1975) 3 SCC 503
E and· Ramana Dgyaram Sheffy vs. International Ali.port ·
Authority oflndia & Ors., (1979) 3 SCC 489, referred to;
1. 7. This Court. is· convinced that although the
discharge is purportedly shown to be also 011 account of
non-availability of a sheltered appointment, the main )...__
. F ·ground for discharge was undoubtedly on account of
permanent low m~dical category i.e. medical. unfitness. In ·
· that view of the matter, the order of discharge of the
respondent would not fall under the residual ground,
namely, I (iii) in Column 2 of the Table appended to r.13
G of the Rules. [Para 23] [898-B-,C] ·
; .··

.· 2.1 .. It is manifest that Arniy Order No.4611980 has
. been issue,d for disposal of permanent low medical ·~
·category. personnel and merely contemplates that the ••
employment of permanent low medical category
H personnel at all times, is subject to the availability of
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 11. RAJPAL SINGH 883

\ saitable alternative appointments commensurate with A
their medical catggories and al:;o subject to the conditions
that such a sheltered appointment can be justified in the
. public in·terest. A plain reading of the Army Order shows
.that it comes into operation after an opinion has been
formed as ·to whether a particular personnel is to be B
retained in service or not, if so for what period. If a person
is to be retained in service despite his low medical
category for a particular period as stipulated in the Army
Order, the question of subjecting him to Invalidating
Board may not arise. However, if a person is to be c
discharged on the ground of mudical unfitness, at that
stage of his tenure of service or 1~xtended service within
the meaning of the Army Order, he has to be discharged
as per the procedure laid down in Clause I (ii) in Column
2 of the Table appended to r.13 of the Rules. Similarly,
0
Sub-rule (2A) of r. 13, heavily relied upon by the appellants
does not carry the case of the appellants any further. It
is only an enabling provision to authorise the
colJlmanding officer to discharge f'rom service a person
or a class of persons in respect whereof a decision has
· been taken by the Central Government or the Chief of E
Army Staff to dis~harge him from service either
unconditionally. or on the fulfilment of certain specified
conditions. The said provision is not in any way in conflict
. with the scope of the remaining part 1of r. 13 of the Rules,
so as to give it an overriding effect, hieing a non obstante F
provision. [Para 26] [900-H; 901-A-F]

2.2. For the foregoing reasons, this Court wholly
agrees with the. reasoning and the conclusion of the High
Court that the discharge of the respondent was not in G
accordance with the prescribed procedure and was,
therefore, illegal. No illegality or infirmity is found in the
• t impugned judgment/order, warranting interference of this
Court. [Para 27] [901-G]
H
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008].15-S.G.R..

A Case Law Reference:
359 U.S. 535: Law Ed referred to. Para 20 ·
(Second series) 1012
(1975) 1 sec 421 referred to Para 21
B
(1975) 3 sec 503 referred to Para 21
)_,
(1.979) 3 sec 489 referred to Para 21
"

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal. No.
c 6587 of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 7.10.2005 &
25~ 1.2007 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP No.
2745 of 2003 & RP No. 307 of 2006 in WP (C) No. 2745 of
. D 2003 respectively.

WITH

SLP (C) Nos. 14338-14339 & 15430 of 2008.

E Vikas Singh, ASG., C(jlin Gonsalves, S. Wasim A. Qadri,
Shiva Lakshmi Singh, .Udita Singh, Amrita Narayan, D.S.
Mahra, B.I<. Prasad, Major K. Ramesh, Dr. Kailash Chand,
Aagney Sail, Jyoti Mendiratta and· Puja Sharma for the
Appellants. ·
.
. . .
.

F P.P. Rao, Purushottarn S.T., Sahar Bakht, Utsav Sidhu,
Major K. Ramesh, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal ai19 Ajay Kumar
for ·the Respondent. · .·

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ,
G
D.K. JAIN, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 6037 of ·
2007.
2. This appeal raises a short question whether the holding
of an "Invalidating Board" is a condition precedent for discharge
H of a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) on account of low
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAJPAL SINGH 885
· [D.K. JAIN, J.]

medical category? A
3. For the determination of the issue aforesaid, it is · .·
unnecessary to delve det3ply into the facts of the case and
only a few material facts would suffice. These are:

.. ~
The respondent, a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO)
was enrolled in the Army on 9th March, 1980. While serving
B

20 JAT Regiment, on 31st July, 2000, he fell ill; was admitted
to the military hospital and was discharged after treatment on
7th November, 2000, but wa8 placed in low medical category
S 1H1A1P2E1 with effect from 6th November, 2000 for six C·
months. On account of disability, namely, lschaemic heart
disease, again in May, 2001, he was continued in low medical
category for another six months. Later, he was brought for
review and was then placed in low medical category
(permanent) for a period of two years from October, 2001. D

4. However, before the expiry of the said period of two
years, a show cause notice was served on the respondent on
27th February, 2002, stating that since he was placed in
permanent low medical category, why he should not be
.discharged from service as no sheltered appointment was E
available and his unit was deployed in a field area. It was also
stated that his retention in service was not in public interest
For the sake of ready reference, the notice is extracted below:

"20 JAT C/O F
99 APO

2062/A/ February, 2002
JC 48893 IX
Mb Sub Rajpal Singh G
20JAT
Clo 99 APO

SHOW CAUSE NOTICE

1. During re-categorization board hetd at 178 Army H
886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008]·.15 S.C.R .

f
A Hospital on 24.102001, as per AF MSF~15A you.
have been declared in permanent low medical
· category. ·

2. ·. Because the unit is deployed in field area, there is
no sheltered appointment. As a result of the above,. - ....·
B·
show cause as to why you should not be discharged
- from service because your retention in service is not ~ ·
in public interest. ·~

. 3. Please send reply of the show cause notice by
c 10.3.2002. . . .

Sd/-xxxx
(Rajesh Ahuja)
Colonel Commanding Officer'' ·

D
5. In his reply to the said notice,·the respondent pleaded
that on doctor's advice he could- perform light duties and
expressed his willingness to continu~ in service. A. 'Releas~
Medical Board' was constituted, which recommended his
E discharge. Accordingly, by an order passed by the Officer ln-
charge (OIC) of 20 JAT Regiment, the respondent VIias
discharged from service with effectfrom 31st August, 2002.

6. Being aggrieved, the respondent challenged his
F discharge by preferring a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. Before the
High Court the plea of the respondent was that:- (i) as a JCO
he could be discharged for low medical category· under Army
Rule 13 (3) (I) (ii) by the Commanding Officer after obtaining
G the opinion of an "Invalidating Board" and not under Rule 13
(3) (I) (iii) (c) read with Rule 13 (2A) which had been applied in
his case and since the opinion of the Invalidating Board had
not been obtained, his discharge was contrary to the rules; (ii)
as per the mandate. of the afore-noted Army Rule, the
H recommendation of the Invalidating Board is to precede the
UNION OF INDIA & ORS: v. RAJPAL SINGH 887
[D.K. JAIN, J.]
~
decision for discharge and a "Release Medical Board" cannot A
. replace the requirement of "Invalidating Board"; (iii). as psr the
policy directive issued by the Govemrnent on 15th March, 2000,
Army Rule 13 (3) (I) (iii) (c), he could be discharged only by the
Chief of Army Staff and not by OIC, 20 JAT Regiment even
though under Rule 13 (2A), such power could be delegated to B
the commanding officer but in the present case· no such
-r' --+ decision had been taken; (iv) there was no adverse report
against him either from his CO or any of the superior officers'
regarding performance of his duties a{ld general behaviour
a"d, therefore, his continuation in service could not be said to c
be' against public interest; (v) the OIC (Records) order of his
discharge without providing an opportunity of hearing is
violative of the principles of natural justice and (vi) a number of
similarly situated JCOs had been retained in service and,
therefore, he had been discriminated against.
,,. ~ I D
7. The stand of the Government before the High Court was
that retention of low medical category personnel is always
subject to the availabiiity of suitable sheltered appointment,
commensurate with their medical category and since no
suitable sheltered appointment was available with the unit due E
to deployment in field area, the respondent had to be
discharged from service. It was also urged that since the
respondent's disability had already been assessed by the
...... Release Medical Board, he was discharged under Army Rule
13 (3) (I) (iii) (c) read with Rule 13 (2A) and Army Order46/80 F
in public interest.

8. The High Court, by a well reasoned order, concluded
that the discharge of the respondent without holding an
"Invalidating Board" in terms of Rule 13 (3) (I) (ii) was illegal.
G
As regards the applicability of Army Order 46 of 1980, which
contemplates that the employment of permanent low medical
' t category personnel at all times is subject to availability of
suitable sheltered appointment, commensurate to their medical
category, the High Court held that before the opinion is formed
H
888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A as to whether a person is to be retained or not on medical
.
·1.
grounds, there has to be an opinion of the Invalidating Board
to the effect that further retention i_n $ervice on medical ground
is not possible: The question of suitable sheltered appointment
commensurating the medical category will be relevant only
· B. thereafter. According to the High Court, there is no rule ·
stipulating that as soon as a person is placed in permanent low
medical category, it will be presumed that he is unfit for further
service. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition;
quashed the order of discharge and directed the appellants
c· herein to reinstate the respondent in service.

· 9. Aggrieved by the said order, the appell;mts filed a
. · Review Petition along with a number of other miscellaneous
applications for interim relief. The Review Petition as well as
the applications were dismissed on merits as well as on the
D . ground .of limitation. The main order dated 7th October, 2005
· as well as the order in Review Petition dated 25th January,
2007 are under challenge in this appeal. ·

10.. It was strenuously urged by Mr. Vikas Singh,.learned
E · Additional Solicitor Gerieral, that since the respondent was in ·
low medical. category,· he was discharged uride'r Army Order
46 of 1980 read with Rule 13 (3) (l)(ii)'( c) of the Army Rules,
1954 (for short 'the Rules') whereunder there is no requirement
for convening an Invalidating-Board. It was submitted.that the
F source of power of discharge of the respondent was Sub-rule ·
(2A) of Rule 13, which creates. a special provision for
discharge, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
in Rule 13. It was contended that the meaning of the expression
'unfit for further service' as used in clause (ii) of Rule 13 (3) (I)
G is very clear and unambiguous and, therefore, "Invalidating
Board" as contemplated under the said Rule is meant only for
those army personnel who are found medically 'unfit for further
service' by the Review Medical Board not for those who are i ,
placed in 'low medical category (permanent)', as is the case
H here. In support of the proposition that when the words of the
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. .RAJPAL SINGH_ 889
[D.K. JAIN, J.]

- statute are clear, plain and unambiguous then the courts are A
bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespec~ive of the .
consequences, reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court
in Gurudevdatta Vksss Maryadit & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. 1 and Jitender Tyagi Vs. Delhi
Administration & Anr. 2 . Reference is also made to Shailendra B
Dania & Ors. Vs. S.P. Dubey & Ors. 3 to 'contend that a long
past practice followed by the department is also a valid factor
in seeking a particular interpretation.

11. Per contra, Mr.P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondent, vehemently contended that in C
terms of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 13 which specifies the category
of officers, competent to discharge; the grounds of discharge,
and the manner of discharge, a JCO like the respondent, who
had been placed in low medical category (permanent) for a
period of two years, could be discharged from service only if D
he had been found "medically urifit for further service" on the
recommendation of the Invalidating Board. According to the
learned counsel, though in the order of discharge the
respondent'has been found to be in "low medical category
(permanent)" but in effect, for the purpose of discharge, he has E
been found medically "unfit for further service", and, therefore,
his case would clearly fall within the ambit of clause (ii) of Rule
13 (3) (I). In support of the proposition that where power is given
to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in
that way or not at all and that other methods of performance F
are necessarily forbidden, reliancH was placed on the decision
in Nazir Ahmad Vs. The King Emperor4, followed in State of
Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh & Ors. 5 . Learned counsel
argued that the requirement of recommendation of Invalidating
1. (2001) 4 sec 534. G
2. (1989) 4 sec 653.
3. (2007) 5 sec 535.
4. L.R. 63 I.A. 372.
5. [1964] 4 SCR 485.
H
890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S'.C.R

. A . Board is a safeguard against arbitrary curtailment of statutory
tenure and being a benevolent provision, requires to be liberally
construed. The stand of the respondent is that the Rules relating
. to discharge do not make any differentiation between
categorisation of the personnel on the basis of the.ir health
'
B status and as long as a person is discharged on medical
grounds as being unfit for further service, provision of Rule 13
(3) (I) (ii) would apply, irrespective of categorisation. In so far
as Army Order 46 of 1980 is concerned, the learned counsel
submitted that it cannot override the statutory rule. Placing
c reliance on the decision of this Court in Capt. Virendra Kumai·
Vs. Union of lndia6 , learned counsel urged that the appellants
having failed to follow the prescribed statutory procedure, the
termination of service of the respondent was illegal and,
therefore, the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the
same;
0
12. Having examined the issue in the light ofthe statutory ·-
provisions, we are of the opinion that answer to the question
. posed has to be in the affirmative. L
E 13~ It needs little emphasis that fitness of the personnel of
Armed Forces at all· levels i,~,.<;>,(.p~rarnount consideration and
there cannot'"be ah}rcomp'romise on that score. It is with this
object in view, the Legislature has enacted the Army Act, 1950; ·
the Armed Forces Medical Services Act, 1983 and framed the
F Rules. Army Orders are also issued from time to time in order
to give effect to these statutory provisions in letter and spirit.
As per the procedure detailed in the written submissions, filed
on behalf of the appellants, annual or periodic medical
examination of the army personnel is done on certain specific
G norms. The medical status of an army personnel is fixed on the
basis of these norms, containing five components viz. (a)
psychology (b) hearing (c) appendarist (d) physical and (e) eye
- which is collectively known as SHAPE. The medical status
• J
6. (1981) 1 sec 485.
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAJPAL SINGH 891
·~ [D.K. JAIN, J.]
I

SHAPE is again characterised in five components known as:- A

SHAPE I-physically fit for all purposes.

SHAPE II & SHAPE Ill-not fit for certain duties and are
required not to undertake strain.
B
SHAPE IV-those who are in hospital for certain ailments
+
and

SHAPE V-unfit for further service of the Army.
c
14. It is pointed out that army personnel are put in the afore-
mentioned medical categories i.e. SHAPE on the basis of a
periodical Medical Board which is held for an individual after
the age of 35 years and thereafter at an interval of every 5 years.
If the army personnel is in SHAPE I, he is not required to
undergo further Medical Board except annual medical D
•
"1(
examination. However, the army personnel who is placed in
SHAPE II and SHAPE Ill on the annual medical examination,
he is placed in low medical category (temporary) for a period
of six months. After six months, he is placed before the Review
Medical Board and if at the end of six months, his category E
remains unchanged, that category is awarded to him _on
permanent basis and he is placed in "low medical category
(permanent)". After award of low medical category (permanent),
J
/. the army personnel is placed before the Review Medical Board.
after every two years. In Review Medical Board, the medical F
category of the personnel may be changed keeping in view the
change in any component of SHAPE. Thus, SHAPE II or
•
SHAPE Ill may be placed in SHAPE 1. also and vice versa. It is
the say of the appellants that the release of certain medical
category (permanent) personnel is regulated by Army Order G
No.46 of 1980, which contemplates that the army personnel,
u ;... who is placed in low medical category (permanent), is to be
-·.I
retained in service for a minimum period of 15 years (for Sepoy)
and 20 years (for JCO) and during this period he is entitled to
all promotions as per the rules; the discharge of low medical H
;-
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008j 15 S.C.R.
f1
r-
A. category is regulated as per the above-mentioned Army Order
and before the discharge, the personnel is placed before the
"Release Medical Board" for a mandatory examination before
the order of discharge is passed. An army personnel who is
categorised as SHAPE V is considered to be not fit for further
B service of the Army and on placing such a personnel in SHAPE
V he is mandatorily brought before Invalidating Board in terms
+- ,__
of Rule 13 (3), whereas an army personnel who is in SHAPE II l .
or in SHAPE 111, is to undergo different Medical Boards apart
from annual medical examination. T.he said personnel are not
c totally unfit but at the same time they are not fit for all the army I
duties and, therefore, they are retained for 15 years or 20
years, as the case may be, on the sheltered post mandatorily.

15. Having noticed the basic parameters which are applied
for categorisation of the physical status of the army personnel,
D it will be useful to briefly refer to relevant statutory provisions. ~. I
16. Chapter IV of the Army Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act')
deals with the conditions of service of the army personnel.
Section 18 of the Act provides that every person subject to the
E Act shall hold office during the pleasure of the President.
Section 19 clothes the Central Government with the power of
dismissal or removal from service any person covered under
the Act subject to ttie provisions of the Act and the Rules and '
Regulations made thereunder. Section 2S .provides for ~>
F dismissal, removal or reduction by the Chief of the Army Staff
and by other officers. Section 22 of the Act provides for
retirement, release or discharge lrom the service by such
authority and in such manner as may be prescribed. Sub.:
Section (xix) cf Section 3 of the Act states that 'prescribed' '
~
means prescribed by rules made under the Act. Section 191 .__
G '
empowers the Central Goyernment to make rules as regards
removal, retirement, release or discharge from the service of _J. L
\t,-
persons subject to the Act. Pursuant to and in furtherance of
the power conferred on the Central Government under Section
191 of the Act, the Central Government framed the Rules.
f
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAJPAL SINGH 893
} [D.K. JAIN, J.]

17. Rule 13 which is the pivotal provision reads thus: A
"13. Authorities empowered to authorise discharge.-( 1)
Each of the authorities specified in column 3 of the Table
below, shall be the competent authority to discharge from
service person subject to the Act specified in column 1
B
-+ thereof on the grounds specified in column 2.

(2) Any power conferred by this rule on any of the aforesaid
authorities shall also be exercisable by any other authority
superior to it.
c
[(2A) Where the Central Government or the Chief of the
Army Staff decides that any person or class or persons
subject to the Act should be discharged from service, either
unconditionally or on the fulfillment of certain specified
~ conditions, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this D
rule, the Commanding Officer shall also be the competent
authority to discharge from service such person or any
person belonging to such class in accordance with the said
decision.]

(3) In this table "commanding officer" means the officer E
commanding the corps or department to which the person
to be discharged belongs except that in the case of junior
-~ commissioned officers and warrant officers of the Special
Medical Section of the Army Medical Corps, the
"commanding officer" means the Director of the Medical F
Services, Army, and in the case of junior commissioned
officer and warrant officers of Remounts, Veterinary and

• Farms, Corps, the "Commanding Officer" means the
Director Remounts, Veterinary and Farms.
!
I• GI
jJ..
J

- H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 15 S.C.R.
.)-.
\

A TABLE

Category Grounds of Competent Manner of
discharge authorify to discharge
authorise
discharge

B 1 2 3 4

Junior l.(i)(a) On completion Commanding
Commissioned of the period of service Officers
Officers or tenure specified in . \
the Regulations for
his rank or appoint-
c ment; are on reaching
..
~
the age limit whichever
is earlier, unless trai-
nee on the active list fpr ....
further specified period
with the sanction of
the Chief of the Army ·~
D Staff or on becoming r
eligible for release
under the Regulations.
'
r-
(b) At his own Cornman.ding
request on transfer Officer

E
to the pension
establishment
..
(ii) Having been Commanding To be carried out
found medically Officer only on the
unfit for further recommendation
service. of an Invalidating
Board.
F (iii) All other classes (a) In the case If the discharge

...
-0f discharge. of Junior is not at the
Commissioned request of the
Officers Junior
J
\
granted Commissioned
direct Officer the
',
commissions competent
G during the authority before
first 12 sanctioning the -4
\...

-
months discharge shall if I-
service Area/ the circumstan- ~
Divisional ces of the ease
Commander permit give the }

H Junior
(

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAJPAL SiNGH 895
[D.K. JAIN, J.]

comirnssioned A
Officer concerned
an opportunity to
show cause
against the order
of discharge.
(b) In the case B
of JCOs, not ·
covered by (a),
serving in any
Army or
Command the
General Officer
Commanding- c
in-Chief of that
Army or
command if
not below the
rank of
...
Lie•Jtenant
General. D
(c) In any other
case the Chief
of the Army
Staff."

E
18. The afore-extracted Rule 13 (1) clearly enumerates the
authorities competent to ~ischarge from ser-Vice, the specified
person; the grounds of discharge and the manner of discharge .
. It is manifest that when in terms of this Rule an army personnel
is discharged on completion of service or tenure or at the
request of the person concerned, no specific manner of F
discharge is prescribed. Naturally, the Regulations or Army
Orders will take care of the field not covered by the Rules.
However, for discharge on other grounds, specified in Column
(2) of the Table, appended to the Rule, the manner of discharge
is clearly laid out. It is plain that a discharge on the ground of 6
having been found "medically unfit for further service" is
specifically dealt with in Column (I) (ii) of the Table, which
stipulates that discharge in such a case is to be carried out only

- on the recommendation of the Invalidating Board. It is a cardinal
principle of interpretation of a Statute that only those cases or H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 15 S.C.R.

A situations can be covered under a residual head, which are not
covered under a specific head. It is, therefore; clear that only·
those cases of discharge would fall within the ambit of the
. residual head, viz. I (iii) which are not covered under the
preceding spedfic heads. In other words, if a JCO is to be
B discharged from the service on the ground of "medically unfit
for further service';, irrespective of the fact whether he is or was
in a low medical category, his order of discharge can be made·
only on the recommendation of an Invalidating Board. The said
rule being clear and unambiguous is capable of only this
c !nterpretation and no other.
19. Having reached the said conclusion, we feel that the
appellants were bound to follow Rule 13 (3) (I) (ii), more so
having placed the respondent in low medical category •
(

(permanent) for a period of two years from October, 2001 he
D was discharged from service on 31st August, 2002, relying on
the recommendation of the Re-categorisation Board held on
24th October, 2001. As noted in the show cause notice,
extracted above, the said Board had placed the respondent in
"permanent low medical category". Be that as it may, the main
·E ground of discharge being medical unfitness for further service,
. I•

the appellants were .bound to follow the prescribed rule.

· 20. It is well settled rule of administrative law that an
executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by
F which it professes its actions to be judged and it must
. scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation
of an act in violation of them. This rule was enunciated by
Justice Frankfurter in Vitera/Ii Vs. Saton7 , where the learned
Judge said:
G "An executive agency must be rigorously held to the
standards by which it professes its action to be judged ...
Accordingly, if dismissal from employment is based on a
defined procedure, even though generous beyond the

H 7. 359 U.S. 535 : Law Ed (Second series) 1012.
~

-----{
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAJPAL SINGH 897
[D.K. JAIN, J.]
~
r
requirements that bind such agency, that procedure must A
be scrupulously observed ... This judicially evolved rule of
administrative law is now firmly established and, if I may
add, rightly so. He that takes the procedural sword shall
perish with that sword."
B
21. The afore-extracted observations were approved and
.+ followed in Sukhdev Singh & Ors. Vs. Bhagatram Sardar
Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr. 8 and then again in Dr. Amarjit
Singh Ahluwalia Vs. The State of Punjab & Ors. 9 wherein,
speaking for a three-Judge Bench, P.N. Bhagwati, J. had
observed that though the above view was not based on the
c
<
equality clause of the United States Constitution and it was
evolved as a rule of administrative law but the principle remains
the same, namely, that arbitrariness should be eliminated in a
State action. (Also see: Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs.
::;:-,--· International Airport Authority of India & Ors. 10). D
"f
22. In view of the foregoing interpretation of the relevant
rule, we are in complete agreement with the High Court that
where a JCO is sought to be discharged on the ground of
medical unfitness for further service, his case has to be dealt E
with strictly in accordance with the procedure contemplated in
Clause I (ii) in Column 2 of the Table appended to Rule 13. The
Rule prescribes a particular procedure for discharge of a JCO
·~ on account of medical unfitness, which must be followed and,
therefore, any order of discharge passed without subjecting him F
to Invalidating Board would fall foul of the said statutory rule.

23. In the present case, it is evident from Column 9 of the
order of discharge that respondent has been discharged on
account of his having been placed in a low medical category
(permanent) by the Re-categorisation Board. As noted above,. G
he was not discharged immediately and was apparently
:.i.-

8. (1975) 1 sec 421.
9. (1975) 3 sec 503.
" 1o. (1979) 3 sec 489. H
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A detailed for sheltered appointment. However, suddenly within
a few months of his evaluation by the "Re-categorisation
Board", he was served with a show cause notice, seeking to
discharge him on the aforementioned grounds. We are
convinced that although the discharge is purportedly shown to
B be also on account of non-availability of a sheltered
appointment, the. main ground for discharge was undoubtedly
on account of permanent low medical category i.e .. medical +-•'
unfitness. In that view of the matter, the order of discharge of
the respondent would not fall under the residuar ground, namely,
c I (iii) in Column 2 of the Table. ·
>
24. That takes u~ to the next question whether the case of
the respondent for discharge could be dealt with in accordance
with Army Order 46 of 1980, de hors Rule 13, as contended
. by the. appellants.
0
25. Relevant porti.on of the said order reads as follows:

''AO 46/80 Disposal of Permanent Low Medical Category
Personnel other·th<m Officers . · · ·
E
. Aim

t. The aim of this Army Order is to lay down
implementation instructions for the disposal of permanent
·~.
low medical category JCOs/OR in terms of Min of Def
F Letter No. A/32395Nlll/Org 2 (MP) (c)/713-S/A/D (AG)
dated 10 May; 77 as amended vide Corrigendum No. Al
32395/X/Org 2 (MP) (c)/7167/A/D (AG) dated 26 Nov 79,
reproduced as Appendice 'A' and 'B' respectively to this
order.
G
Retention

2. General Principles

(a)The employment of permanent low medical
H category personnel, at all times, is subject to the
r
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAJPAL SINGH 899
[D.K. JAIN, J.]
f
availability of suitable alternative appointments A
commensurate with their medical category and
also to the proviso that this can be justified in the
public interest, and that their retention will not
exceed the sanctioned strength ·of the regiment/
corps. When such an appointment is not available 8
or when their retention is either not considered
,..,..
necessary in the interest of the service or it
exceeds the sanctioned strength of the regiment/
corps, they will be discharged irrespective of the
service put in by them.
c
(b) Orqinarily, permanent low medical category
personnel will be retained in service till completion /,

of 15 years service in the case of JCOs and 10 ,
years in the case of OR (including NCOs}/,
.."'T However, such personnel may continue to be D
retained in service beyond the above period until
they become due for discharge in the normal
manner subject to their willingness and the fulfilment
of the stipulation laid in Sub Para (a) above.
E
3. All personnel retained in service in terms of Para 2
above will, under all circumstances, be discharged on
completion of their engagement periods/retiring service
..... limits. For this purpose, NCOs and JCOs will be treated
as under:-
F
(a) NCOs ~ill be discharged on completion of the
retiring- service limits appropriate to ranks as
opposed to the extended limits laid down in AO 13/
~ 77. However, their retention-beyond the contractual
period of engagement will be regulated under the G
provisions of Paras 144 to 147 of Regulations for ·
·~
/ the Army 1962.

(b) JCOs will be discharged on completion of the
normal retiring service limits as opposed to the H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A extended limits laid down in AO 13/77.

4. Personnel suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, ·..
including those who may be cured of the .disease, will be
disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Min of
Def letter No. 22679/DGAFMS/DG-3N2721/D(ME:- dated
'B
. 18 Jul 74 (reproduced in AO 150/75), as amended/
amplified from time to time.

5. Cases of all permanent low medical category personnel
wilt be reviewed by all concerned accordingly. In the case
c of those personnel who become due for discharge as per
the instructions contained in the preceding paragraphs,
immediate action will be taken in the normal manner to
carry of their discharge, as expeditiously as possible.
. .

D 6. This order only lays down the general policy and
procedure with regard to the disposal of permanent Jaw
medical category personnel. The actual discharge will,
however, be carried out in accordance with the provisions
of Min of Def letter No. N323~5Nlll/Org 2 (MP) (c)/713-
S/a/D (AG) dated 10 May 77 •· as amended vide
E
Corrigendum No. N32395/X/Org (MP) (c)/7167/ND (AG)
dated 26 Nov 79 (reproduced as Appendices 'A' and 'B'
respectively) and this HQ letter No. 8861/AG/PS 2 (c)
dated 18 Aug 64, read with letter No 8861/A(3/PS 2(c)
· dated 26 Mar/1 Apr 70.
F
7. Cases of permanent.lowmedical category personnel
already decided under the existing provisions, will not be

G
re-opened.

8. This supersedes all previous .instructions on the
subject.
.
. I

N32395/X/Org 2(MP)"

26. It is manifest that the said Army Order has been issued
H for disposal of permanent low medical category personnel and
--~·
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAJPAL SINGH 901 .
[D.K. JAIN, J.]
t merely contemplates that the employment of permanent .low A
medical category personnel at all times, is subject to the
availability of suitable alternative appointments commensurate
with their medical categories and ~lso subject to the conditions
that such a sheltered appointment can be justified in the public
interest. A plain reading of the Army Order shows that it comes B
into operation after an opinion has been formed as to whether
_....
a particular personnel is to be retained in service or not, if so
for what period. If a person is to be retained in service despite
his low medical category for a particular period as stipulated
in the Army Order 46 of 1980, the question of subjecting him c '

to Invalidating Board may not arise. However, if a person is to
be discharged on the ground of medical unfitness, at that stage
of his tenure of service or extended service within the meaning
of the Army Order, he has to be discharged as per the
procedure laid down in Clause I (ii) in Column 2 of the said
-...,..- D
Table: Similarly, Sub-rule (2A) of Rule 13, heavily relied upon
~
by the appellants does not carry the case of the appellants any
further. It is only an enabling provision to authorise the
commanding officer to discharge from service a person or a
class of persons in respect whereof a decision has been taken
by the Central Government or the Chief of Army Staff to
.E

-1
discharge him from service either unconditionally or on the
fulfilment of certain specified conditions. The said provision is
not in any way in conflict with the scope of the remaining part
~ of Rule 13, so as to give it an overriding effect, being a non
obstante provision. F
4
I 27. For the foregoing reasons, we wholly agree with the

•- '·
reasoning and the conclusion of the High Court that the
discharge of the respondent was not in accordance with the
prescribed procedure and was, therefore, illegal. We do not find G
any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment/order,
yr warranting our interference. The appeal, being devoid of any
merit, is dismissed accordingly with costs.
(

~ H
...,
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A SLP (C) NOS. 14338-14339 OF 2008 & SLP (C)
N0.15430 OF 2008

28. These tagged $pedal leave petitions have been
preferred against the orders passed by the High Court,
B declining to grant interim relief to the-writ petitioners. Since the
main issue now stands decided, there is no point in entertaining
these petitions. AU the petitions are dismissed accordingly .._
without observing anything on merits. It will be open to the High
Court to now take up the main writ petitions for disposal in
C accordance with law.

S.K.S. Civil Appeal and Special
leave petitions dismissed.

-

)