‘Discipline is hallmark of Armed Forces’: SC refuses reduction to Army man who overstayed go away

By Express News Service

Highlighting that self-discipline is an ‘implicit hallmark’ of the Armed Forces and a ‘non-negotiable situation of service’, the Supreme Court refused to grant reduction to an Army driver who had taken extra go away with out discover.

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal noticed that gross indiscipline by these serving within the forces can’t be tolerated whereas noting that the appellant, a former sepoy, seemed to be a routine offender and had remained out of line for a lot too lengthy by searching for condonation of his go away.

The apex courtroom famous that if accepted (the attraction), it might have despatched a flawed sign to others in service.

“Such gross indiscipline on the part of the appellant who was a member of the Armed Forces could not be countenanced. He remained out of line far too often for seeking condonation of his absence of leave, this time, for a prolonged period of 108 days which if accepted, would have sent a wrong signal to others in service,” the order learn.

“One must be mindful of the fact that discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of service,” it added.

The Army driver was approaching the highest courtroom searching for reduction in a February 2015 order handed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Lucknow Regional Bench dismissing him from service.

The bench noticed that the punishment given to him was not that severe in comparison with his conduct.

“The punishment of dismissal from service on conviction by Court Martial has been treated as a lesser punishment vis-à-vis the punishment of imprisonment for any period below 14 years … sub-section (4) of Section 120 clearly states that a SCM can pass any sentence as contemplated under the Act,” it was famous.

“The appellant had been taking too many liberties during his service and despite several punishments awarded to him earlier, ranging from imposition of fine to rigorous imprisonment, he did not mend his ways. This was his sixth infraction for the very same offence. Therefore, he did not deserve any leniency by infliction of a punishment lesser than that which has been awarded to him,” it was famous.

Highlighting that self-discipline is an ‘implicit hallmark’ of the Armed Forces and a ‘non-negotiable situation of service’, the Supreme Court refused to grant reduction to an Army driver who had taken extra go away with out discover.

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal noticed that gross indiscipline by these serving within the forces can’t be tolerated whereas noting that the appellant, a former sepoy, seemed to be a routine offender and had remained out of line for a lot too lengthy by searching for condonation of his go away.

The apex courtroom famous that if accepted (the attraction), it might have despatched a flawed sign to others in service.googletag.cmd.push(perform() googletag.show(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );

“Such gross indiscipline on the part of the appellant who was a member of the Armed Forces could not be countenanced. He remained out of line far too often for seeking condonation of his absence of leave, this time, for a prolonged period of 108 days which if accepted, would have sent a wrong signal to others in service,” the order learn.

“One must be mindful of the fact that discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of service,” it added.

The Army driver was approaching the highest courtroom searching for reduction in a February 2015 order handed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Lucknow Regional Bench dismissing him from service.

The bench noticed that the punishment given to him was not that severe in comparison with his conduct.

“The punishment of dismissal from service on conviction by Court Martial has been treated as a lesser punishment vis-à-vis the punishment of imprisonment for any period below 14 years … sub-section (4) of Section 120 clearly states that a SCM can pass any sentence as contemplated under the Act,” it was famous.

“The appellant had been taking too many liberties during his service and despite several punishments awarded to him earlier, ranging from imposition of fine to rigorous imprisonment, he did not mend his ways. This was his sixth infraction for the very same offence. Therefore, he did not deserve any leniency by infliction of a punishment lesser than that which has been awarded to him,” it was famous.