Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 11473–11474 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3384– 3386 of 2017)

Incorrect Citation of SLP Numbers (Citation Conflict)

• You wrote:

Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 11473–11474 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3384–3386 of 2017)

• ❌ Problem: The SLP numbers (3384–3386 of 2017) are incorrectly repeated from the Flipkart case and do not match Civil Appeal Nos. 11473–11474 of 2018.

• ✅ Correction: You should verify and correct the SLP numbers specific to Amarendra Kumar Pandey v. UOI. This is likely a copy-paste error.

Date: July 14, 2022

Bench: Justices Suryakant and J.B. Pardiwala

Parties:

• Appellant: Rifleman Amarendra Kumar Pandey

• Respondent: Union of India

Background:

Amarendra Kumar Pandey, who joined the Assam Rifles in 1993, was discharged from service in 2004 after accumulating four Red Ink entries for various misconducts. The discharge was ordered under Rule 13(3) of the Assam Rifles Rules, which permits discharge for continued willful disobedience or neglect of duty. Pandey challenged the discharge, arguing that it was arbitrary and lacked proper application of mind.

Rule Numbering Error or Incompleteness

• Mentioned:

“Rule 13(3) of the Assam Rifles Rules”

• ❌ Problem: Assam Rifles doesn't have a standalone set of “Assam Rifles Rules.” Instead, service matters are governed under Assam Rifles Rules, 2009, or earlier Assam Rifles Manual, and such rules often mirror Army Act/Rules structures.

• ✅ Correction:

o Confirm whether it's Rule 13(3)(iii) or (iii)(v) as in the Army Rules, 1954, which is often applied to Assam Rifles personnel mutatis mutandis.

o Clarify:

"under Rule 13(3) of the Assam Rifles Rules, which permits discretionary discharge for repeated misconduct..."

Legal Issue:

Whether the discharge from service was justified, considering the nature and gravity of the misconduct, the procedural fairness, and the application of relevant precedents.

Supreme Court's Findings:

• Discretionary Nature of Discharge: The Court emphasized that the discharge was not automatic upon receiving four Red Ink entries. The use of "may" in Rule 13(3) indicates that the authority has discretion, and discharge should not be ordered without considering all relevant factors.

• Need for Reasoned Orders: The Court highlighted the importance of providing reasons for discharge orders, especially when they affect an individual's livelihood and pension rights.

• Consideration of Misconduct: The Court noted that the nature and severity of the misconduct should be assessed before making a discharge decision.

• Application of Precedents: The Court referred to previous judgments, particularly Virendra Kumar Dubey v. Chief of Army Staff (2016) and Vijay Shankar Mishra v. Union of India (2017), which emphasized the need for a fair and reasoned approach in discharge cases.

Outcome:

The Supreme Court set aside the discharge order and directed that Pandey be treated as having been in service until he would have completed the qualifying service for pension. He was granted continuity of service for all purposes, including pension, but without back wages. Monetary benefits were to be released within four months from the date of the order.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. What was the primary legal issue in Amarendra Kumar Pandey v. Union of India?

a) Whether the discharge was automatic after four Red Ink entries.

b) Whether the discharge order was arbitrary and lacked proper application of mind.

c) Whether the appellant was entitled to back wages.

d) Whether the appellant's pension rights were violated.

Answer: b

2. Which previous case did the Supreme Court refer to in emphasizing the need for a reasoned discharge order?

a) Virendra Kumar Dubey v. Chief of Army Staff

b) Vijay Shankar Mishra v. Union of India

c) Balwant Singh v. Union of India

d) Satgur Singh v. Union of India

Answer: A Options a) and c) are nearly the same: Correct Answer remains: b

3. What discretion did Rule 13(3) of the Assam Rifles Rules provide to the commanding officer?

a) Mandatory discharge after four Red Ink entries.

b) Discretionary discharge after four Red Ink entries.

c) Automatic discharge after four Red Ink entries.

d) No discharge allowed under any circumstances.

Answer: b) Discretionary discharge after four Red Ink entries.

4. What was the Supreme Court's direction regarding the appellant's pension?

a) To be treated as having been in service until he would have completed the qualifying service for pension.

b) To receive back wages.

c) To be reinstated with full benefits.

d) To be denied any pension.

Answer: a

5. What did the Supreme Court emphasize regarding the discharge order?

a) It should be based solely on the number of Red Ink entries.

b) It should be automatic without considering individual circumstances.

c) It should be reasoned and consider the nature and gravity of misconduct.

d) It should be decided without any judicial review.

Answer: c