Amarendra Kumar Pandey vs Union of India
Facts of the case
Amarendra Kumar Pandey joined the Assam Rifles as a Rifleman in 1993. During his service, he received four Red Ink entries for various infractions, including:
1. 1996 – Overstaying leave to take care of his ailing mother.
2. 1998 – Entering a restricted area without permission.
3. 1999 – Losing his government-issued identity card.
4. 2004 – Playing cards alone, considered a violation of unit standing orders.
Based on these entries, the Commanding Officer discharged him from service on January 31, 2004, citing him as an "incorrigible offender."
Pandey challenged this decision before the Guwahati High Court through a writ petition. A Single Judge of the High Court ruled in his favor (2015), stating that receiving four Red Ink entries does not automatically mandate dismissal. The court found that the dismissal order lacked proper reasoning and did not consider mitigating factors like the severity of the offenses. It ordered a fresh decision based on discretionary evaluation of his misconduct.
The Union of India appealed, and a Division Bench of the High Court reversed the decision (2017), ruling that under the Assam Rifles Manual, no detailed reasoning was required for discharge. It held that the Commandant had full discretion to remove personnel with four or more Red Ink entries after giving a notice.
Pandey then appealed to the Supreme Court of India, arguing that his dismissal was arbitrary, that not all offenses were serious, and that he was close to qualifying for pension benefits.
Issues
1. Whether a discharge from Assam Rifles is automatic upon receiving four Red Ink entries, or if discretion must be exercised.
2. Whether the nature and severity of misconduct should be considered before dismissal.
3. Whether the absence of detailed reasoning in the discharge order violated principles of natural justice.
4. Whether Pandey was entitled to pension and other benefits.
Relevant Articles and Laws
1. Assam Rifles Act, 1941 & Assam Rifles Manual – Governs service rules, including grounds for dismissal.
2. Principles of Natural Justice – Requirement of fair reasoning and consideration before dismissal.
3. Supreme Court Precedents:
o Virendra Kumar Dubey v. Chief of Army Staff (2016) – Held that four Red Ink entries alone do not justify automatic dismissal.
o Vijay Shankar Mishra v. Union of India (2017) – Emphasized individualized assessment of misconduct before dismissal.
o Union of India v. Balwant Singh (2015) – Recognized commanding officers’ discretion but within legal limits.
Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Amarendra Kumar Pandey, setting aside his dismissal order and granting him pensionary benefits.
1. Dismissal is not automatic upon four Red Ink entries – The Assam Rifles Manual provides discretion to the Commandant, meaning the nature and circumstances of offenses must be considered.
2. Lack of reasoning in the discharge order violated natural justice – The Supreme Court reiterated that any administrative decision affecting livelihood must provide reasons.
3. Pandey’s infractions were minor – The Court found that his offenses were not severe enough to warrant immediate dismissal, especially since he was close to pension eligibility.
4. Reinstatement not granted, but pension approved – Instead of full reinstatement, the Court treated him as in service until he completed pension-qualifying years.
The Court directed that:
• Pandey be treated as having served until he met pension eligibility.
• He be granted pension and continuity of service benefits.
• No back wages be paid.
• All monetary benefits be disbursed within four months.
ADITYA
DSNLU
Comments