SC Reinstates four Army Personnel Dismissed over Fake Certificates

Four army personnel initially dismissed over allegations of using fake relationship certificates to secure their positions, fought a legal battle for over a decade. After the prolonged dispute, the Supreme Court reinstated them. Notably, the court ruled that since they had not applied in the reserved category, they were not required to produce any relationship certificates for selection or recruitment, effectively dismissing the allegations against them, writes ETV Bharat's Sumit Saxena

New Delhi:Four army personnel, who had applied in the general category, fought for over a decade against their dismissal from service on allegation of joining the service based on fake relationship certificates with ex-army personnel. Interestingly, the Supreme Court, reinstating the army personnel, said they have not produced any relationship certificate for selection/recruitment, as they never applied in the reserved category.

A bench comprising justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, in a judgment delivered on February 9, citing the army personnel discharge certificate or the order of the Commandant, said: “There is no whisper that any inquiry was conducted to ascertain or find out as to whether the appellants had produced relationship certificates for enrolment/recruitment in the army."

"No finding has been recorded by the respondents that the appellants had as of fact, produced such certificates or that their explanation claiming that no such certificates were furnished by them is completely false. In effect, the authorities have not dealt with the above explanations/claims of the appellants," said the bench. The respondents in the case were the Ministry of Defence, the Chief of Army Staff, the Commandant, the Maratha Light Infantry Regimental Centre (MLIRC) and the office-in-charge (records) Maratha Light Infantry.

The apex court set aside the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) order, which refused to interfere with the discharge certificate, dismissing the appellants from service for adopting fraudulent means. The bench said, “The tribunal casually and routinely affirmed the discharge/dismissal order simply holding that the relationship certificates produced by the appellants are fake even upon verification”. “The tribunal also seems to have lost sight of the crucial point of the appellants that they have applied under the general category and not as relatives of servicemen/ex-servicemen. They have not produced the alleged certificate(s), which could be held to be fake”, said the bench.

The apex court said the core issue arising in the matter was missed not only by the authorities concerned, but by the tribunal as well, therefore the orders of discharge/dismissal of the appellants and that of the tribunal stand vitiated for non-consideration of the material aspect.

The bench noted that the respondents have relied upon a newspaper clipping, dated September 27, 2009, which was neither part of the record before the tribunal nor of these appeals, but was passed over to it for its perusal. “The respondents made no efforts to bring it on record at any stage, not even before this court except for placing it across the Bar for our perusal. In such a scenario, it is not at all appropriate for this court to consider and rely upon it”, said the bench.

The bench said it is simply a news item published in the newspaper informing that such an exercise for enrolment /recruitment under the unit headquarters quota is going to take place without specifically stating that general category candidates, who do not have any relationship with servicemen/ex-servicemen, are prohibited or barred from applying.

The bench noted that appellants brought on record Xerox copies of their applications submitted for enrolment /recruitment where they have not claimed the status of a relative of servicemen/ex-servicemen, NCC, or sports persons rather they have clearly stated to be of general category.

The order of the Commandant, dismissing the appellants, stated that at the time of enrolment in December 2009 under the unit headquarters quota at the Maratha Light Infantry Regimental Centre, the relationship certificates of the appellants upon verification from records have been found to be manipulated and false.

Concluding the judgment, the apex court said, “The recruitment under the headquarter quota was not confined to the priority/reserved class rather it was open for general category also to a limited extent…the discharge/dismissal of the appellants from service is vitiated for non-consideration of their specific case that they have not produced any relationship certificate for selection/recruitment as they never applied in the reserved category”.

The MLIRC had released an advertisement calling for eligible candidates to join the army services and the advertisement made a provision for filling up the seats, primarily by the candidates, who were related to ex-army personnel or falling within some quota. It was further provided that in case vacancies for recruitment remain available with the regimental centre, personnel from the open category based on merit may be taken.

“We have no option, but to set aside the impugned orders of discharge/dismissal dated May 9, 2013, and the judgment(s) and order(s) dated March 6, 2014 and November 18, 2015, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. The appellants shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits”, said the apex court.