The apex court has upheld the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh, and Regional Bench at Chandimandir and pronounced that a member of the Armed Forces cannot take his duty lightly and abstain from duty at his will. Sep. Satgur Singh was discharged from service on account of seven red ink entries due to his unauthorized absence from duty. The rest of the public servants can relax as their unauthorized absence can attract only reduced salary; break in service at the most disciplinary actions at the department level.

The Appellant, in this case, was an Army personnel who was discharged from service on account of seven red ink entries during his 11 years 9 months and 15 days service with the Indian Army.  In 2004 the appellant was served with a show cause notice that he is undesirable for retention in service due to seven red entries. The appellant has not given any relevant reply to the notice other than sighting his vague family problems.

The main contention of the appellant’s counsel was that the red ink entries by itself would not be sufficient to discharge any person, but the Commanding Officer is required to conduct an inquiry as required under para 5(a) of the Army Instructions dated December 28, 1988. The appellant has not replied to the seven show-cause notice before his red entries. There was no such plea as he was not intimated in respect of his right to reply for the show cause notice or his side was not properly heard.

The apex court clarified that Para 5(a) of the Circular dated December 28, 1988 deals with an enquiry which is not a court of inquiry into the allegations against an army personnel. Such enquiry is not like departmental enquiry but a semblance of the fair decision-making process keeping in view the reply filed. The court of inquiry stands specifically excluded. What kind of enquiry is required to be conducted would depend upon facts of each case. The enquiry is not a regular enquiry as para 5(a) of the Army Instructions suggests that it is a preliminary enquiry. The test of preliminary enquiry will be satisfied if an explanation of personnel is submitted and upon consideration, an order is passed thereon.

The court held that as In this case, the appellant has not given any explanation of his absence from duty on seven occasions and he has imposed punishment of imprisonment for the same, therefore, the order of discharge cannot be said to be unjustified. For details of judgment refer CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1857 OF 2018, Sep Satgur Singh V Union of India and Ors.