Army not obliged to retain officers required to serve for specified term if they are found unfit, rules AFT
Vijay Mohan
Chandigarh, January 7
The Armed Forces Tribunal has ruled that there is no obligation on the part of the Army to keep an officer in service for any specified period even if he was, on his part, required to serve the organisation for the stipulated period after undergoing training at government expense.
A short service commission officer (SSCO) from the Army Aviation Corps, who underwent flying training after being commissioned, was required to serve up to 14 years, but was discharged after 10 years of service.
In his petition, he had contended that as per the policy in vogue, if he was not approved for grant of permanent commission on rendering 10 years of service, he could not be released before completing the mandatory 14 years’ service as SSCO. However, he was neither approved for permanent commission nor was his term extended by four years. He also challenged the proceedings of the selection board.
The Tribunal observed that though the policy makes it clear that the obligation imposed upon SSCOs who successfully complete flying training is that they are liable to work for a period of 14 years even if not granted permanent commission on completing 10 years’ service they cannot seek prior discharge or pre-mature release.
“It only imposes a liability on the officer who has completed the training. This cannot be construed or interpreted as consequential liability imposed by this policy on the Army also to keep an officer for a period of 14 years,” the Tribunal’s Bench comprising Justice Rajendra Menon and Lt Gen PM Hariz, ruled.
The Bench said that if the officer’s interpretation is accepted, there would be a situation which would create administrative and other obligations as a person not found qualified or meritorious enough for grant of permanent commission or extension of service for various reasons will be required to continue with all the disqualifications, which would render him unsuitable to continue in service.
“This could never be the intention or the mandate of the policy and therefore there cannot be any policy which would mandate an organisation to keep in service an employee who is found unfit to discharge his duties,” the Bench ruled.
The interpretation that an officer cannot be discharged or released by the organisation before the completion of his obligatory service is wholly misconceived and cannot be accepted, the Bench added.
“On the contrary, the policy only contemplated that having undergone training, an officer cannot seek pre-mature discharge but once his case is referred to the selection board as per policy, the mandate of the policy is that he can be discharged having found to be unsuitable for grant of permanent commission or extension in service,” the Bench said.
The Tribunal also did not find any fault in the proceedings of No.5 Selection Board which had considered the petitioner’s case for grant of permanent commission or extension in service.
