: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6923 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.6923 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.6923 OF 2005 Lt.Aman Deep Singh .. Petitioner. Versus Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Sameer Vaidya for the petitioner. Mr.G.Hariharan with Mr.Kiran Kandpile for respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE : 26th June, 2008. DATE : 26th June, 2008. DATE : 26th June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The petitioner by this petition is challenging the order dated 12.9.2005. 2. The petitioner was working as a lieutenant in the Naval Services. The order which is impugned in this petition says that the petitioner was simply discharged from the service. In the petition, the respondent has filed affidavit. In the affidavit, the respondent has given details about the service of the petitioner and the reason for his discharge from service. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit, the respondent has stated thus :- "3. At the outset this is to place on record that the petitioner ex-officer had joined Indian Naval Ship, INS, Shivaji, Lonavala on 05.06.2002 : 2 : for pursuing 3 years B.Tech Course at Naval College of Engineering. The petitioner indulged himself in number of misconduct and also involved in large number of disciplinary cases. His academic performance was poor throughout the duration of his stay at the Naval College of Engineering. Hence, considering this background it was found that the petitioner is unsuitable for the career in Navy where the officers are required to provide leadership to men and are expected to lead their men at war with exemplary behaviour, honesty and time tested ethos of the services. . This is to place on record that even when the petitioner was at National Defence Academy where he had undergone training as a cadet prior to joining navy, his superiors had remarked that the petitioner requires improvement in self discipline. Hence, inspite of repeated chances being given to the petitioner to improve his conduct and also the academic career the petitioner failed to pay any heed to the same. Hence, under the Navy Act of 1957 the petitioner was discharged from service as he had repeatedly involved himself in acts of in-discipline, misconduct and poor academic performance. In addition to this, the petitioner also entertained female guest in his cabin which is in gross violation of the existing navy rules and regulations. Subsequent to this, the petitioner was involved in number of cases which were not perused since, he was discharged from service, some of them are as under :- 1. The petitioner had submitted a cheque dated 17.06.2005 which was drawn in favour of the officers institute INS, Shivaji for amount of Rs.12,378/-. The said cheque was dishonoured by the bank for insufficiency of funds. Hence, the Act of the petitioner contravene to Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and was also punishable under Section 77(2) of the Navy Act, 1957. 2. The petitioner had remained absent from duty on 17.09.2005 from 07.45 to 20.40 hours. 3. In paragraph 6, it is further stated :- "6. I say that the petitioner has been : 3 : discharged from service as he indulged himself in repeated acts of in-discipline and poor performance in academic career. I say that apart from the petitioner entertaining a female guest on 04.06.2005, the petitioner was involved in following cases of misconduct :- 1. On 12.09.2002, the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Section 147(b) of the Navy Act in which he overstayed for 4 days after mid term break and did not report on duty for which he was awarded the following by the Commanding Officer. a) Severe reprimand b) Logging c) Stoppage of leave for 14 days d) Extra drill for 10 days 2. On 20.05.2003, the petitioner remained absent at both watches (morning roll call in the Naval terminology) and subsequently from the classes, hence, the contravened Article 0408 of College standing order. The petitioner was warned by the Commanding Officer. 3. The petitioner on 14.08.2003 had proceeded to Pune without prior permission and had returned on 15.08.2003 which violated the instruction of King College (Senior most Trainee Officer of the College). The petitioner while proceeding to Pune did not entered his name in Under Trainee Officers shortly register at gangway, hence, the petitioner abstained himself from naval College of Engineering concert in Menaka on 14.08.2003, Barkhana on 15.08.2003 and Triathlon/both watches on 16.08.2003. The petitioner was warned and counselled by the Training Officer (College) on 19.08.2003. 4. On 15.10.2003, the petitioner on 12.10.2003 had attempted to proceed out of the base despite being Sick in Quarters and Asstt. Officer of the day and subsequently made false statement thereby violating the Navy Act which is punishable under Section 74 of the Navy Act, 1957. The petitioner was warned and he was given 5 days extra duty by Training Captain (College). 5. On 19.05.2004, the petitioner was found : 4 : absent for Mass Physical Training without valid reason. Thereby he contravened Article 0470 of NCE standing order. The petitioner was warned and counselled by Training Officer (College). 6. On 23.06.2004, the petitioner voluntarily assisted in concealment of 3 mobile phones to his brother officers. The petitioner was tried summarily on charge under Section 414 of I.P.C. r/w. Section 77(2) of Navy Act. The petitioner’s seniority in rank of sub-Lieutenant was forfeited for 3 months. 7. On 28.09.2004, the petitioner on 19.09.2004 was found absent from the class without any valid reason and hence, had contravened Article 0470 of NCE standing order. The petitioner was warned and counselled by the Training Officer (college). 8. On 18.05.2005, the petitioner remained absent from his place of duty i.e. NBCD Class and proceeded to Pimpri, Pune without prior permission. The petitioner was admonished by the Commanding Officer. . Apart from this the petitioner’s academic performance was poor i.e. much below the basic minimum requirement." 4. This affidavit was filed in the month of February, 2006. The petitioner has not filed rejoinder. He has not denied what is stated in the affidavit filed by the respondent. It is clear from the contents of the above quoted paragraphs that the authorities were watching the conduct of the petitioner for a period of about 3 years and when they found that inspite of warnings issued to him from time to time, minor punishments imposed upon him from time to time, he was not showing any improvement, they : 5 : decide to discharge the petitioner from the service. 5. The second reason for discharging him was his poor academic performance. The petitioner was working in Engineering Wing. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit, the respondent has given details of the poor academic record of the petitioner. That paragraph 9 reads as under :- "9. With reference to para 5(iii) of the petition, the petitioner in his autumn term of 2003 performed poorly in his mid term examination which can be seen from his marks as given below :- 1. Element of Mechanic Engineering (6/25) pass mark (12.5). 2. Electro Magnetic Field (6/30) pass mark (15). 3. Network (8/25) pass mark (12.5). 4) Electrical Machinery (8/30) pass mark (15). 5. Electronic Device (8/25) pass mark (12.5). Subsequently, he was warned by Training Officer, Training Captain and Principal (College). Despite the warnings the petitioner failed in final examination in 3 subjects, the details of which are as under :- 1. Element of Mechanic Engineering (66/150) pass mark (75). 2. Electro Magnetic Field (30/200) pass mark (100). 3. Electrical Machinery (68/200) pass mark (100). The overall percentage of the petitioner : 6 : was 44.31%. It is stated that as per the existing rules,if a student fails in more than 2 subjects or if the individual overall percentage is less than 55%, he is liable to be relegated from that semester. The petitioner was accordingly, relegated in December 2003 under Navy order 12/95. Hence, it is to deny that the petitioner was not aware of the reasons of his relegation." 6. Again, there is no rejoinder disputing these allegations. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheel Kr.Roy v/s. Secretary M/O Sheel Kr.Roy v/s. Secretary M/O Sheel Kr.Roy v/s. Secretary M/O Defence & Ors. 2007 AIR SCW 4111 Defence & Ors. 2007 AIR SCW 4111 Defence & Ors. 2007 AIR SCW 4111 to contend that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is excessive. 7. Perusal of that judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court shows that the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the punishment of imprisonment and dismissal was disproportionate, considering that the charge that was proved against the officer concerned and, therefore, on considering the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that discharging the officer concerned from service would be adequate. Insofar as the present case is concerned, there is no punishment imposed on the present petitioner. He has been simply discharged from service without casting any stigma and the reason is the unsatisfactory conduct of petitioner as trainee officer : 7 : and his poor academic record. 8. In our opinion, considering that the petitioner is a member of Uniformed Disciplined Forces, it will not be proper exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the order passed by the authority, specially, in view of the uncontroverted averments in paragraphs 6 and 9 of the affidavit which we have quoted above. 9. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it will not be in the interest of justice and in public interest to interfere with the order impugned in the petition. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 10. By way of an interim order, the petitioner was permitted to appear for examination but the result were not to be declared. We have been informed that the results are kept in sealed packet. In our opinion, no prejudice would be caused to the interest of anybody if those results are permitted to be declared. However, it is made clear that this order does not enable the petitioner to complete his studies in any armed forces college/institution if he is not otherwise entitled to do : 8 : so. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)