M.A. No. 35 of 2012 & O.A. No. 24 of 2012. Case: Appukuttan R. Vs Union of India, The Senior Record Officer, Sena Seva Corps Abhilekh (Dakshin) and The Director General, Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension). Armed Forces Tribunal

Case NumberM.A. No. 35 of 2012 & O.A. No. 24 of 2012
CounselFor Appellant: Sri. B. Harish Kumar, Adv. and For Respondents: Sri. K.M. Jamaludeen, Sr. Panel Counsel, Adv. R1 to R3
JudgesShri Kant Tripathi, Member (J) and Lt. Gen. Thomas Mathew, PVSM, AVSM, Member (A)
IssueService Law
Judgement DateMarch 12, 2013
CourtArmed Forces Tribunal


Shri Kant Tripathi, Member (J), (Regional Bench, Kochi)

  1. Heard Mr. B. Harishkumar for the applicant and Mr. K.M. Jamaludeen, Senior Panel Counsel, for the respondents, and perused the record. The applicant has impugned his discharge from the Army, which was made as back as on 25.9.1973 under Army Rule 13(3)III(v), therefore, there has been a delay of more than 38 years in filing the Original Application, which the applicant has to properly explain before pressing for hearing on the merits of the O.A.

  2. Accordingly, the applicant has filed M.A. No. 35 of 2012 for condonation of delay against which the respondents have filed reply statement. The rejoinder on behalf of the applicant is also on record. The contention on behalf of the applicant was that the discharge was made without serving any show cause notice on the applicant, so, he was not provided any opportunity of hearing. The applicant and his father agitated before the authorities on 2.1.1974, 16.8.1974, 9.3.1975, 12.9.1975, 7.3.1976, 15.12.1976, 6.10.1977, 1.1.1978, 5.3.1978 and 11.9.1978, but they did not take any proper decision. Therefore, the applicant submitted representation on 14.12.2002, on the basis of which the service particulars, vide Annexure A3 dated 10.2.2005, were furnished to the applicant. On receipt of the service particulars, the applicant again represented to the authorities against his illegal discharge with no fruitful result. The applicant again sent the representations (Annexure A4 and A5). The representation (Ann. A5), was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 20.5.2010 (Annexure A6). The applicant preferred an appeal before the first respondent, which was also dismissed vide order dated 27th December 2010 (Annexure A8). Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that the delay was not deliberate or intentional and it occurred due to the facts and circumstances stated hereinbefore and was liable to be condoned.

  3. The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the applicant had been issued the discharge certificate at the time of his discharge, in which the reason for discharge had been disclosed, but the applicant instead of challenging the discharge slept over the matter for about 39 years. He next submitted that the representation (Annexure A2) dated 25.11.1973 was submitted for issue of another discharge certificate so as to enable the applicant to seek civil employment. By that representation, he had not...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT