O.A. No. 93 of 2014. Case: Anoop V. Vs Union of India. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 93 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Manoj Kumar N., Adv. and For Respondents: P.J. Philip, Central Govt. Counsel |
| Judges | Shrikant Tripathi, J. (Member (J)) and M.P. Muralidharan, Member (A) |
| Issue | Defence |
| Judgement Date | December 04, 2014 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Order:
Shrikant Tripathi, J. (Member (J)), (Regional Bench At Kochi)
-
Heard Mr. N. Manoj Kumar for the applicant and Mr. P.J. Philip for the respondents and perused the record.
-
The applicant, Anoop V., Army No. 15624396 X, has challenged his discharge from the Army, which was made on the ground that he was found "unlikely to become an efficient soldier". Copy of the discharge order is on record as Annexure-A6. He was enrolled in the Indian Army and was directed to report at Guards Regimental Centre on 09th September 2012. His basic training started with Course Serial No. 91 with effect from 3rd December 2012. It is also stated that while he was undergoing basic training on 8th March 2013 he suffered "SPRAIN (LT) ANKLE". So he was admitted in Military Hospital, Kamptee for about 18 days upto 25th March 2013. During that period he was exempted from physical training by the medical authority. He missed 33 days of his basic training. So he was relegated from Course 91 to 92. He then joined Course 92 for further training. During the basic training in 92 Course he could not pass Physical Proficiency Test even after availing all four chances. Hence he was relegated to Course 93, which he joined but was again admitted in Military Hospital, Kamptee due to "STRESS FRACTURE RT TIBIA" on 21st July 2013, due to which he could not participate in the training for 100 days.
-
It is alleged that, according to Para 67(b) of Infantry Recruit Training Pamphlet 2007 (Annexure-R3) only two maximum relegation for recruits belonging to Infantry Regimental Centre are permissible, which the applicant had already availed. So he was finally discharged from the service on 19th December 2013 under Army Rule 13(3) on the ground that he was 'unlikely to become an efficient soldier'.
-
Mr. Manoj Kumar appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant was no doubt directed to join Course 93 and he went to join there, but because of the stress fracture of right Tibia he physically could not join the course. So the second relegation was in fact not availed by the applicant and as such the respondents were not justified in treating the Course 93 as the second relegation and to discharge the applicant.
-
Mr. P.J. Philip appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that when the applicant had appeared and joined 93 Course, it was deemed that he availed the second relegation.
-
We have examined the rival submissions and perused the relevant material...
To continue reading
Request your trial