2022 (7) TMI 1326 - SC - Indian Laws

Discharge from Assam Rifles on securing four Red Ink entries - difference between cases of major misconducts and minor misconducts - Assignment of reasons for order of discharge - consideration of plea of malafide raised against the authority - principal argument of is that the discharge from service is not automatic or mandatory after four Red entriesis - HELD THAT - This Court took into consideration the fact that there was no application of mind by the authority to the relevant aspects which were taken into consideration while exercising the power under Rule 13 of the Rules. In both the aforesaid cases, this Court took the view that the mere fact that the Personnel had crossed the threshold of few Red Ink entries could not have been made a ground to discharge them without considering other relevant circumstances, more particularly, the nature of the violation which led to the award of the Red Ink entries. The action based on the subjective opinion or satisfaction, can judicially be reviewed first to find out the existence of the facts or circumstances on the basis of which the authority is alleged to have formed the opinion. It is true that ordinarily the court should not inquire into the correctness or otherwise of the facts found except in a case where it is alleged that the facts which have been found existing were not supported by any evidence at all or that the finding in regard to circumstances or material is so perverse that no reasonable man would say that the facts and circumstances exist. The courts will not readily defer to the conclusiveness of the authority s opinion as to the existence of matter of law or fact upon which the validity of the exercise of the power is predicated. The doctrine of reasonableness thus may be invoked. Where there are no reasonable grounds for the formation of the authority s opinion, judicial review in such a case is permissible. Having regard to the nature of the misconduct alleged against the appellant, the ends of justice would be met if we set aside the order of discharge and treat the appellant herein to have been in service till the time, he could be said to have completed the qualifying service for grant of pension. Such an order is passed with a view to do substantial justice as there is nothing on record to indicate that the nature of the misconduct leading to the award of four Red Ink entries was so unacceptable that the competent authority had no option but to direct his discharge to prevent indiscipline in the force. The order of discharge passed against the appellant herein is hereby set aside. The appellant shall be treated to have been in service till the time he would have completed the qualifying service for grant of pension - The benefit of continuity of service for all other purpose shall be granted to the appellant including pension. The monetary benefits payable to the appellant shall be released expeditiously but not later than four months from the date of this order. Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of discharge based on four Red Ink entries.
2. Requirement of recording reasons in the discharge order.
3. Consideration of the appellant's response to the show cause notice.
4. Application of discretion by the authority.
5. Allegation of mala fide action by the authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Discharge Based on Four Red Ink Entries:
The appellant, a Rifleman in the Assam Rifles, was discharged based on four Red Ink entries, which were considered sufficient to render his further retention in public service undesirable. The Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court upheld the discharge, stating that the Assam Rifles Act, 1941, and the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 do not require the authority to record reasons or satisfaction in the discharge order itself. However, the Supreme Court referenced its previous judgments in Virendra Kumar Dubey v. Chief of Army Staff and Vijay Shankar Mishra v. Union of India, emphasizing that discharge is not automatic upon receiving four Red Ink entries. The nature and severity of the misconduct must be considered, and procedural safeguards must be in place to prevent arbitrary exercise of power.

2. Requirement of Recording Reasons in the Discharge Order:
The Supreme Court held that the discharge order must be a speaking order, indicating how and in what manner the authority exercised its discretionary power. The authority must examine the response of the concerned person and weigh it against the severity of the misconduct. The Division Bench's view that reasons need not be recorded in the discharge order was found to be erroneous. The Court reiterated the importance of giving reasons in support of decisions affecting the rights of parties, as highlighted in the Division Bench judgment in Balwant Singh v. Union of India.

3. Consideration of the Appellant's Response to the Show Cause Notice:
The appellant had responded to the show cause notice by tendering an apology and highlighting his family circumstances. The Supreme Court noted that the authority did not adequately consider the appellant's response or provide a detailed explanation for why the discharge was necessary. The procedural safeguards, as outlined in the Assam Rifles Manual and Record Office Instruction No. 4/1999, require that the individual's response be considered before making a final decision on discharge.

4. Application of Discretion by the Authority:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the discretion to discharge a person with four or more Red Ink entries must be exercised with due diligence and in a reasonable and rational manner. The mere fact of receiving four Red Ink entries does not automatically warrant discharge. The authority must consider the nature and gravity of the misconduct and other relevant circumstances. The Court highlighted that the procedural safeguards are meant to prevent arbitrary exercise of power and ensure fairness in decision-making.

5. Allegation of Mala Fide Action by the Authority:
The appellant raised an allegation of mala fide action by the authority, which was not considered by the High Court. The Supreme Court underscored that the authority must act bona fide and not proceed on a fundamental misconception of the law. The decision must be based on relevant grounds, and any improper purpose or irrelevant considerations would render the action invalid.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the order of discharge and directed that the appellant be treated as having been in service until he completed the qualifying service for pension. No back wages were awarded, but the appellant was granted the benefit of continuity of service for all other purposes, including pension. The Court's decision emphasized the need for procedural fairness, consideration of relevant circumstances, and the requirement for a speaking order in cases of discharge based on Red Ink entries.

← Previous Next →