Summary
A rifleman of the Assam Rifles was discharged in 2004 as an incorrigible offender on four red ink entries: overstaying leave to care for his ailing mother, stepping towards an out-of-bounds area to make a phone call, losing his identity card with his luggage, and playing cards alone. A Single Judge set the discharge aside for want of reasons; the Division Bench restored it, holding that neither the Assam Rifles Act nor ROI 1/2004 required reasons. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. Four red ink entries are only a threshold; discharge is discretionary, and the authority must weigh the gravity of the misconduct and the explanation after a summary inquiry (Virendra Kumar Dubey; Vijay Shankar Mishra). Subjective satisfaction is reviewable where facts are absent or relevant factors ignored. Nothing showed misconduct so grave that discharge was the only option.
Issues
- Whether a member of the Assam Rifles can be discharged merely because he has incurred four red ink entries, without the competent authority weighing the nature and gravity of the misconduct and his explanation.
- Whether an order of discharge resting on the authority's subjective satisfaction is open to judicial review, and on what grounds.
Provisions considered
- Section 4(a), with Rule 24, Chapter VIII of the Assam Rifles Manual and Para 6 of ROI 4/99, Assam Rifles Act, 1941These confer a discretionary power on the Commandant to discharge a person with four red ink entries after a show-cause notice; the Manual itself says dismissal is a last resort for incorrigible offenders and ROI 4/99 says discharge should as far as practicable be avoided as it forfeits pension. (¶¶ 2, 10, 11, 12)
- Regulations 107(c) and 108, Assam Rifles Regulations, 2016Though not applicable to a 2004 discharge, these later regulations, requiring a prior warning after three entries, examination of each case on the gravity of the offences, recorded reasons and a preliminary inquiry, reflect the ratio of Virendra Kumar Dubey. (¶ 38)
Held
- Red ink entries may be earned for offences of widely differing gravity, so treating all four-entry cases alike would treat unequals as equals. Crossing the threshold of four entries cannot by itself justify discharge; the authority must consider the nature of the violations, service in hard stations and length of service, after an inquiry however summary, and record a finding on the defence set up (Virendra Kumar Dubey; Vijay Shankar Mishra). (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25)
- Satgur Singh, where the soldier offered no explanation for seven absences from duty, turned on its facts and does not assist the respondents. (¶ 26)
- An authority's subjective satisfaction is conclusive only if the prescribed procedure was followed, it acted bona fide, formed its own opinion and did not misconceive the law. Courts may interfere where the facts on which the opinion rests do not exist, where the inference does not reasonably flow from the facts, where a statutory term is misapplied, where the power is used for an improper purpose, or where relevant grounds are ignored or irrelevant ones considered. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37)
- Nothing on record showed that the misconduct behind the four entries was so unacceptable that the authority had no option but discharge to prevent indiscipline, so the discharge was set aside and the appellant deemed in service until completion of qualifying service for pension, which was six months away. (¶¶ 39, 40)
Result
Appeals allowed. Discharge order of 31.01.2004 set aside; appellant treated as in service until completion of qualifying service for pension, with continuity of service for all purposes including pension but no back wages; monetary benefits to be released within four months. No costs.