1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5262/2003 (Ram Chandra Vs. UOI & Ors.) Date of order : 20.5.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. D.R. Gurjar, for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Mathur, for UOI. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the validity of order dated 25.6.2002 (Annexure-2) as well as the order dated 28.7.2003 (Annexure-4) whereby the petitioner was discharged from service. The contention of the petitioner is that he was substantively working in the Army and he was posted at various places of the country in his service tenure. As per the petitioner, his brother Mr. Mehram came to see him in the month of June, 2000 and under suspicion Commanding Officer pressurized the petitioner to file an application seeking discharge from army service at his own on the ground that mother of the petitioner is not keeping good health. But petitioner made a request to the authorities that he does not want to leave the services as his mother is quite healthy and she is keeping good health. Upon 2 said request of the petitioner, the Commanding Officer threatened the petitioner for court marshal or to shoot him. Therefore, under pressure and undue influence of Commanding Officer, an application for seeking discharge from service at his own was filed by the petitioner. The application written by the petitioner was also got signed by two witnesses of the Unit also but the copy of the said application was not given to the petitioner. The application of the petitioner which was filed under pressure and threatening of the Commanding Officer was accepted without supplying discharge order and the petitioner was sent to home vide movement order. The contention of the petitioner is that after serving 17 years in the Army due to illegal action of the Commanding Officer, he was discharged from the service on the ground that he has filed an application for discharge at his own but in fact the application was forcibly got written from the petitioner, which is illegal action of the Commanding Officer. While submitting the above grounds, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of discharge, which is based upon the application filed by the petitioner under the threat of Commanding Officer. 3 In reply to the writ petition, it is submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable because personal allegations have been levelled against the higher officials of the Army, more specifically the Commanding Officer but he has not been impleaded as party. It is submitted that the petitioner was interviewed by the Commanding Officer and thereafter upon his application his discharge was sanctioned by the competent authority. The necessary approval for legal discharge from service was also obtained from the Officer Incharge (Records) as per the procedure. Further, it is stated that the petitioner was deployed in the Headquarter 65 Inf. Bde and during that period, operation 'Parakram' was operating, therefore, leave in respect of all ranks was restricted to 5% only on extreme compassionate grounds as per the order dated 19.2.2002. Therefore, there was no question of granting any leave in the Army, therefore, to leave service of Army. The petitioner had expressed his free will for pre-mature discharge from Army and for that purpose the petitioner was interviewed by the Commanding Officer and his application was duly sanctioned and after expiry of six months from the said date, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, that too was rejected by the appellate authority vide Annexure-4 dated 28.7.2003. With regard to allegations of the petitioner of threatening against the Commanding Officer, it is submitted that all the allegations are 4 baseless and have no foundation to stand before eye of law. In the application filed by the petitioner, it is stated that the in future he will not ask for its revocation if the application for discharge at own request on extreme compassionate grounds. Therefore, to maintain the discipline in the Army, the application of the petitioner for pre-mature voluntary discharge was accepted, which is absolutely just and proper. The allegations of the petitioner are totally unfounded, which is evident from his two applications filed in Hindi and English language, which are placed on record by the respondents as Annexure-R/1 and Annexure-R/5. These applications bear the signatures of petitioners. Therefore, no interference is required in this case. After hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that both the applications filed by the petitioner for pre mature discharge filed along with the reply bears the signatures of the petitioner, so also, the petitioner is not denying his signatures and raised ground that he was threatened by the Commanding Officer and under threat signatures were obtained. In my opinion, the said ground is totally baseless because no officer was gaining anything in consideration of discharge of petitioner from service. The petitioner has made allegation against the Commanding Officer but he has not been impleaded as party in person. Therefore, in my opinion, in such 5 type of cases when discipline of army is involved and vague allegations are made, this Court should not interfere while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, no interference is required in this case. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun