A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court addressed the dismissal of four Army recruits who were alleged to have produced false relationship certificates to gain entry under the Unit Headquarters Quota (UHQ). The appellants asserted they applied under the general category and denied using fraudulent means or producing false certificates. The Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision to uphold the dismissal was challenged on the grounds of non-consideration of relevant material and principles of natural justice. The Court found that the dismissal orders lacked inquiry into whether the appellants actually submitted the alleged fake certificates. The Tribunal’s failure to address the appellants’ claims rendered its decision unsustainable. The Court ruled that the appellants should be reinstated with consequential benefits.

Keywords: Service Law, Dismissal from Service, False Relationship Certificates, Principles of Natural Justice, Armed Forces Tribunal Act.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: No.2809759H Ex-Recruit Babanna Machched v. Union of India and Ors.

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 644-645 of 2017

iii) Judgement Date: 09 February 2024

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal

vi) Author: Justice Pankaj Mithal

vii) Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 242 : 2024 INSC 95

viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None mentioned

x) Case Related to Law Subjects: Service Law, Administrative Law, Constitutional Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case pertains to allegations of fraudulent recruitment under the Army’s UHQ scheme. Instructions for such recruitment prioritize relatives of servicemen and ex-servicemen. The appellants, dismissed on claims of using false relationship certificates, argued that they applied as general category candidates. The Armed Forces Tribunal upheld the dismissal orders, leading to the present appeals. The crux of the case revolved around whether the appellants’ dismissal adhered to principles of natural justice.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The appellants were recruited in December 2009 under the UHQ scheme at the Maratha Light Infantry Regimental Centre.
2. Three years later, they were issued show-cause notices alleging they used forged relationship certificates for recruitment.
3. Their services were terminated in May 2013 on grounds of fraudulent means, specifically submitting false relationship certificates.
4. The appellants denied producing any such certificates, asserting that they applied as general category candidates.
5. Appeals to the Armed Forces Tribunal and subsequent review petitions were dismissed, prompting their challenge in the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Did the appellants gain recruitment through priority given to relatives of servicemen or ex-servicemen?
ii) Did the appellants submit false relationship certificates?
iii) Were the appellants’ dismissal orders legally sustainable given the lack of inquiry into their claims?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The appellants contended they were recruited under the general category and not as relatives of servicemen or ex-servicemen.
ii) They denied producing any relationship certificates, stating that no such documentation was claimed in their applications.
iii) They argued that the dismissal orders were vitiated due to non-consideration of their explanations and lack of inquiry into the alleged certificates.
iv) They claimed violation of the principles of natural justice as no proper procedure was followed in verifying the allegations.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The respondents argued that recruitment under the UHQ scheme is exclusively for relatives of servicemen or ex-servicemen.
ii) They contended that the appellants’ defense was an afterthought and maintained that the relationship certificates were found to be fake.
iii) They relied on a newspaper clipping suggesting that recruitment was restricted to reserved categories, though this was not officially recorded or relied upon earlier.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007: Governs the jurisdiction and procedures for adjudicating service-related disputes.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Recruitment under the UHQ scheme was open to general category candidates when surplus vacancies existed.
2. There was no conclusive evidence that the appellants produced any relationship certificates.
3. The dismissal orders and the Tribunal’s decision were unsustainable as they failed to address the appellants’ claims and lacked inquiry.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in administrative decisions, especially in service law.

c. GUIDELINES (IF ANY)

The Court provided the following directions:

• Administrative authorities must ensure procedural fairness, including a proper inquiry into allegations.
• Dismissal orders must be supported by clear findings and evidence.
• Tribunals must consider all relevant claims and material presented by the parties.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforced the necessity of procedural fairness in service-related dismissals. It underscored the importance of substantiating allegations with evidence and upholding natural justice. The reinstatement of the appellants with consequential benefits serves as a precedent for addressing procedural lapses in dismissal cases.

K) REFERENCES

i) S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, [1990] 1 Suppl. SCR 44; (1990) 4 SCC 594
ii) Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, [1978] 2 SCR 272; (1978) 1 SCC 405
iii) Ex Sig. Man Kanhaiya Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., [2018] 1 SCR 679; (2018) 14 SCC 279
iv) S. Muthu Kumaran v. Union of India and Ors., [2017] 1 SCR 550; (2017) 4 SCC 609