S. MUTHU KUMARAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 550, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Case Partly allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
c 
[2017] I S.C.R. 550 
S. MUTHU KUMARAN 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.352of2017) 
JANUARY 17. 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Service Law - Dismissal from service - Of delinquent employee 
in Army - On the a/legation that he was involved in fraudulent 
recruitment racket - Confessional statement of the employee -
General Commanding Officer dismissed the service oI the 
employee - The order affirmed by Armed Forces Tribunal - On· 
appeal, held: GOC in exercise of his rights uls.20(3) of Army Act r! 
w. r.17 of Army Rules passed the order of dismissal - The provisions 
of Army Act and Rules as also principles of natural justicxe were 
D . complied with - The Tribunal also rightly appraised the evidence 
and the law while affirming the dismissal order - However, in view 
of his 17 years of unblemished service, punishment of dismissal is 
extreme - Therefore. the same is modified to discharge from 
E 
F 
G 
H 
·service - Army Act, 1950 - s.20(3) -Army Rules, 1954 -
J'. 17 -
Principles of Natural Justice. 
Partly allowing the aP.peal, the Court 
HELD: As per Section 20(3) of the Army Act, 1950 an 
officer having power not less than a brigade or equivalent 
commander or any prescribed officer may dismiss or remove from 
the service any person serving under his command. other than an 
officer or a junior commissioned officer. Rule 17 of the Army 
rules, 1954 requires the dismissal/removal order to be a reasoned 
one. In the present case, the
General Officer Commanding 26 
(GOC), Infantry Division initiated administrative action against 
the appellant on the ground of being allegedly involved in 
fraudulent recruitment. Show cause notice was duly issued to 
the appellant and he was afforded an opportunity of filing reply to 
the show cause notice as well as an addftional reply. The provisions 
of the Army Act and Rules thereof; as well as the mandate of 
natural justice w'as duly complied with in the case of the appellant. 
Henceforth, the GOC exercised his right under Section 20(3) of 
550
S. MUTHU KUMARAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
the Act coupled with rule 17 of the Rules, and dismissed the 
appellant from services w.e.f. 10.07 .. 2011. After having rightly 
appraised the evidence on record and the law dealing with the 
subject, the Armed forces tribunal dismissed the application filed 
by the appellant, thereby affirming his dismissal from service. 
There is no perversity in the findings of the Tribunal. [Para 9] 
[553-G-H; 554-A-C] 
2. However, as far as the dismissal from service is 
concerned, it is an extreme punishment imposed against the 
appellant. When the dismissal order was passed iu case of the 
appellant, the GOC could have taken into account the 
unblemished service record of the appellant and his long service. 
If an order of discharge would have been inflicted against the 
appellant, he still would have been restricted from continuing in 
service and at the same time, the appellant, who had served 
diligently for more than 17 years, would have been granted with 
the benefits accrued on his service rendered so far. Therefore, 
the punishment of dismissal from service is modified into 
discharge from service. [Paras 10, 11] [554-D-F; 555-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 352 
of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.05.2016 of the Armed 
Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Jaipur in O.A. No. 96 of 20 l 1 and 
30.05.2016.in M.A. No. 320 of2016 in 0.A. No. 96 of20l l. 
Mohan Kumar, V. Sivasubramanian, Advs., for the
Appellant. 
Atmaram N. S. Nadkami, ASG, R. Bala Subramanian, Santosh 
. Kumar, Ananya Mishra, Ms. Aarti Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, 
Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
.R. BANUMATHI, J. I. The present appeal is filed under Section 
30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal.Act, 20'.)7 assailing the judgment and 
order dated 06.05.2016 in 0.A. No. 96 uf20l I, as well as order dated 
30.05.2016 in M.A. No.320 of201G in (J A. No.96of20l1 passed by 
the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Jaipur, dismissing the 
original application filed by the appellant sesking reinstatement in service 
with all consequential benefits. 
551 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
552 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 
2. In a nutshell, the facts leading to present appeal are as follows. 
The appellant was inducted in the Indian Army on 26.04.1994 on the 
post ofHavildar/Clerk. The appellant is alleged to have been involved in 
fraudulent recruitment racket and obtaining illegal gratification in lieu of 
the same, during his posting in Jammu and Kashmir in the month of 
September, 2006. Accordingly, the appellant was served with a show 
cause notice dated 07.06.2010 alongwith a copy of his confessional 
statement dated 28.09 .2006 asking as to why action be not taken against 
him. The confessional statement of the appellant was made in his own 
handwriting and bore his signatures too. In his confessional statement, 
the appellant is said to have admitted that in collusion with Dafadar/ 
Clerk KNS Rao of ARO Jammu and otl1ers he had fraudulently enrolled 
around six candidates and obtained illegal gratifications from them in 
lieu of the same. 
3. The appellant, vide his reply dated 05.07.20 I 0 denied the 
allegations made against him in the show cause notice and submitted 
that the concerned authority had already held an inquiry in this regard 
and after recording the evidence had concluded that no charges are 
proved against the appellant. The appellant was served with a subsequent 
show cause notice dated I 9.12.20 I 0 asking him to submit additional reply, 
ifany. The appellant submitted additional reply dated
27.12.20 I 0, stating 
that he was forced to give self incriminating confessional statement 
which deserves to be discarded on account of being false and made 
under coercion. The officiating officer had opined in favour of dropping 
the proceedings against the appellant. In his opinion dated 26.12.2010, 
the officiating Commanding Officer submitted that the appellant had 
already been acquitted from the concerned case by the competent 
authority and thus, re-opening of the case on hearsay evidence of a 
proven culprit, Dfr/Clk KNS Rao is unwarranted. 
4. Based on the materials available against the appellant, inclusive 
of the reply and additional reply of the appellant, the General Officer 
Commanding, 26 Infantry Division terminated the services of the appellant 
vide order dated 18.02.2011 under Section 20(3) of the Army Act read 
with Rule 17 of the Army Rules. Challenging the termination order dated 
18.02.20 I I, the appellant filed an application under Section 14 of the 
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 before the Armed Forces Tribunal on 
02.06.2011. The matter was listed for admission on 03.06.2011. Even 
when the matter was pending before the Tribunal, the appellant filed
S. MUTHU KUMARAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5999of2011 before the Rajasthan High Court 
at Jodhpur. Vide order dated 08.07.2011, the High Cou11 disposed of the 
Writ Petition with liberty to the appellant to file representation before the 
concerned authority. However, the appellant did not prefer any 
representation before the concerned authority thereof. 
5. The Tribunal took note of the entire facts and circumstances, 
more specifically, the retracted confessional statement of the appellant 
and vide its order dated 06.05.2016, dismissed the appellant's application 
as being devoid of any merit. The Miscellaneous Application (M.A. 
No.320 of2016 in O.A. No.96 of201 I) filed by the appellant seeking 
leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 31 of the Act was 
also dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2016. Aggrieved thereof, the 
appellant approached this forum by filing an appeal under Section 30 of 
the AFT Act. 
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal 
ought to have taken note of the opinion of DJAC, as per which no 
sufficient evidence was available against the appellant. It was further 
submitted that once the Commanding Officer had come to the conclusion 
that no charge or trial is made out against the appellant, it was not open 
to the respondents to terminate the services of the appellant by invoking 
the administrative power under Section 20 of the Army Act read with 
Rule 17 of the
Army Rules. 
7. On the contra1y, the learned counsel for the respondents has 
maintained that no case is made out for interfering with the reasoned 
order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. The General Officer 
Commancjing, 26 Infantry Division was well withiQ its powers under 
Section 20(3) read with Rule 17 of the Army Rules to terminate the 
services of the appellant. 
8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused 
the impugned judgment and the materials available on record . 
. 9. As per Section 20(3) of the Army Act, 1950, 'an officer having 
553 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
power not less than_ a brigade or equivalent commander or any prescribed 
G 
officer may dismiss or'remove from the service any person serving under 
his CO!Jlriland other.th~n an officer or a junior commissioned officer'. 
·Rule J 7·oftheAnny R,ules, 1954 requires the dism·issal/removal order to 
be a reasoned one. hi the present case, the Genera( Officer Commanding 
26 (GOC), Infantry Div.isio.n initiated administrative action against the · H
554 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20 I 7] I S.C.R. 
appellant on the ground of being allegedly involved in fraudulent 
recruitment during the month of August, 2006, while he was posted at 
Jam mu. Show cause notice was duly issued to the appellant and he was 
afforded an opportunity of filing reply to the show cause notice as well 
as an additional reply. The provisions of the Army Act and Rules thereof, 
as well as the mandate of natural justice was duly complied with in the 
case of the appellant. Henceforth, the GOC exercised his right under 
Section 20(3) of the Act coupled with Rule 17 of the Rules, and dismissed 
the appellant from services w.e.f. 10.07.2011. After having rightly 
appraised the evidence on record and the law dealing with the subject, 
the Armed Forces Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the appellant, 
thereby affirming his di.smissal from service. We do not find any perversity 
in the findings of the Tribunal. However, with regard to infliction of 
punishment of dismissal from service, we are of the view that the Tribunal 
could have kept in view the long service of the appellant. 
10.As a matter ofrecord, the appellant was enrolled in the Indian 
Army on 26.04.1994 and till his termination on I 0.07.2011, he is said to 
have discharged his services diligently for more than seventeen years. 
During the period of his service, he had no adverse remarks in his service 
record except the present one. In our view, when the
dismissal order 
was passed in case of the appellant, the GOC could have taken into 
account the unblemished service record of the appellant and his long 
service. If an order of discharge would have been inflicted against the 
appellant, he still would have been restricted from continuing in service 
and at the same time, the appellant, who had served diligently for more 
than 17 years, would have been granted with the benefits accrued on his 
service rendered so far. 
11. No doubt, the dismissal order passed against the appellant was 
within the powers of the concerned authorities. However, as far as the 
dismissal from service is concerned, it is an extreme punishment imposed 
against the appellant. The ap~ellant has to thrive in civil life by doing an 
appropriate job suitable to his qualification. In the facts and circumstances 
of the present case, we are inclined to modify the punishment of dismissal 
from service into discharge from service. The modification of the 
sentence of dismissal from service into that of discharge will not change 
the position of the appellant, so as to claim any re-instatement into service. 
Even ifhe was discharged from service, in lieu of dismissal from service, 
the appellant cannot seek for any employment or re-employment into
S. MUTHU KUMARAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
the Anny Therefore, there would not be any grievance for the respondents 
in the event of punishment of dismissal being modified into that of 
discharge. At the same time, interest of justice would be served as the 
appellant would get the benefits like gratuity and other attendant benefits 
for the service rendered by him and the appellant would also get an 
opportunity to lead honourable life in the society: 
12. The impugned order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal in 
0.A. 96/2011 dated 06.05.2016 is modified to the extent that the order 
of dismissal of the appellantfrom service is converted to.that of discharge 
from service. The appeal is thus partly allowed and the respondents are 
directed to release benefits available to the appellant for the service 
rendered by him in the Army. No order as to costs. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeal partly allowed. 
555 
A 
B 
c