Summary
A soldier dismissed for enrolment through an admittedly fake relationship certificate challenged use of the Army Act’s administrative dismissal power, invoking the court-martial provision on fraudulent enrolment. The Court upheld dismissal after notice and opportunity to respond, finding the admitted fraud and substantial procedural compliance decisive.
Issues
- Whether administrative dismissal under section 20(3) was lawful despite the appellant’s reliance on section 122(4) governing trial for fraudulent enrolment.
Provisions considered
- Sections 20(3) and 122(4), Army Act, 1950The claimed restriction on court-martial did not defeat the administrative dismissal power in this admitted-fraud case. (¶¶ 6–7, 14–16)
- Rule 17, Army Rules, 1954Notice of the cause and reasonable opportunity to respond had been provided; the appellant admitted submitting a fake certificate. (¶ 8–9)
Held
- The section 20(3) power, read with rule 17, requires informing the person of the cause and allowing reasonable time for a written response. That procedure was substantially followed here. (¶ 9)
- The appellant admitted the certificate was fake and could not have obtained enrolment without it. Fraud vitiated the enrolment, and the authorities were entitled to invoke administrative dismissal; the demand for further inquiry was untenable on the admitted facts. (¶ 10–16)
Result
Appeal dismissed; dismissal from service under section 20(3) upheld.