Unlawful Dismissal in Armed Forces: Supreme Court’s Verdict on Randhir Singh Case

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors., addressing the legality of a Summary Court Martial (SCM) that led to the dismissal of an army personnel. The case centered on the improper invocation of an SCM and whether the punishment of dismissal was legally sustainable. This judgment is significant for military law, as it reaffirms procedural safeguards and the necessity for fair disciplinary proceedings in the armed forces.

Background of the Case

Randhir Singh was enrolled in the 43 Armed Brigade of the Indian Army on October 29, 1996, and was serving as an Acting Lance Dafadar. The allegations against him stemmed from an incident on August 11, 2007, in which he was accused of inappropriate conduct towards the spouse of a fellow officer while she was washing her son.

A Summary Court Martial (SCM) was convened on May 22, 2008, leading to Singh’s dismissal from service. The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) upheld the charge against him but reduced his punishment from dismissal to discharge.

Key Issues Before the Supreme Court

• Whether the SCM was legally valid under Section 120 of the Army Act, 1950.
• Whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate.
• Whether the delay in conducting the SCM impacted the legality of the proceedings.
• Whether the court should reinstate Singh or provide alternative relief.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Randhir Singh)

The petitioner argued:

• The SCM was illegal because it was not an emergency case requiring immediate action, as required under Section 120 of the Army Act.
• The incident occurred in August 2007, but the SCM was convened only in May 2008, proving that there was no urgency.
• His past complaint against the spouse of the victim for unauthorized fuel removal from a Maruti Gypsy in June-July 2007 was used as a basis for false allegations against him.
• The entire case was a conspiracy, and he was denied a fair trial.

Arguments by the Respondents (Union of India & Others)

The Additional Solicitor General defending the case argued:

• The allegations against Singh were serious and warranted disciplinary action.
• The victim and her husband both testified in the SCM, confirming the charges.
• SCM is a valid disciplinary procedure under the Army Act, and Singh had no grounds to challenge it.
• The punishment was justified given the misconduct.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Randhir Singh, holding that:

On the Legality of the SCM

The Court noted:

“The power to order an SCM is a drastic power that must be exercised only when immediate action is necessary. The long delay in convening the SCM proves that urgency was absent.”

The Court relied on Ex Havildar Ratan Singh v. Union of India and Union of India v. Vishav Priya Singh to hold that SCM should be used only in cases requiring immediate intervention.

On the Proportionality of the Punishment

The Court ruled:

“The dismissal of the appellant was disproportionate. The AFT’s decision to modify the punishment to discharge was reasonable.”

On the Relief Granted

The Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to order:

• Randhir Singh should be treated as having served until he completed 15 years of service, making him eligible for pension.
• The discharge should be deemed effective from the date he completed the minimum pensionable service.
• The arrears of pension should be paid to him within three months.

Key Takeaways

• SCM Must Be Used in Genuine Emergencies: The judgment reaffirms that summary courts-martial cannot be misused for routine disciplinary cases.
• Proportionality of Punishment: The decision ensures that military personnel are not disproportionately punished for their actions.
• Pension Rights of Dismissed Employees: The Court protected Singh’s right to pension by ordering a retrospective discharge instead of dismissal.
• Judicial Review in Military Law: The judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s power to correct unfair military disciplinary actions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case is a major victory for fairness in military disciplinary proceedings. It reinforces the principle that summary courts-martial should only be used in urgent situations and that dismissals must be proportionate to the offense committed. The judgment also sets a precedent for ensuring that military personnel’s pension rights are not unfairly denied.

Petitioner Name: Randhir Singh.
Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Indira Banerjee.
Place Of Incident: Chandigarh.
Judgment Date: 08-07-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Randhir Singh vs Union of India & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 08-07-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Disciplinary Proceedings
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Indira Banerjee
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category