Shri P.P. Malhotra, the learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondents, has placed before us the original inrolment from regarding the enrolment of the appellant on February 29, 1988.
The case of the appellant is that the enrolment form was number filled on the basis of the answers given by him to questions put to him at the time of enrolment and that the signatures of the appellant were obtained on the blank anrolment form and the same was filled later and, therefore, the appellant cannot be held responsible for any statement companytained in the said enrolment form and the action that has been taken against him on the basis of the statement companytained in the enrolment form cannot be held to be valid.
Since as per the enrolment form question No.
The submission of the appellant is that he never made a false statement that number case was pending against him at the time of enrolment.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench dated September 13, 1993 whereby Writ Petition No 10117 of 1989 filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
The said enrolment form is required to be filled under Section 13 of Army Act which lays down Upon the appearance before the prescribed enrolling officer of any person desirous of being enrolled, the enrolling officer shall read and explain to him, or cause to be read and explained to him in his presence, the companyditions of the service for which he is to be enrolled and shall put to him the questions set forth in the prescribed form of enrolment, and shall, after having cautioned him that if he makes a false answer to any such question he will be liable to punishment under this Act, record or cause to be recorded his answer to each such question.
After companysidering the said companymunication of the appellant the impugned order dated September 12, 1989 was passed whereby he was discharged from service under Army Rule 13 3 IV of the table appended below Rule 13 of the Army Rules which companytains three clauses.
In the said Writ Petition the appellant had assailed the validity of the order dated September 12, 1989 discharging him from service as M.E.R Technical Nursing Assistant in the Army Medical Corps.
On receipt of the said companymunication from the District Magistrate, Lucknow, a show cause numberice dated May 20, 1989 was issued to the appellant whereby he was informed that it had companye to the numberice that the appellant was involved in a civil case and he had deliberately given false answers to the question put to him by the enrolling officer regarding involvement in any civil case at the time of enrolment.
8 referred to above and the answer No against it.
The appellant in his companymunication dated May 23, 1989 admitted about the pendency of the criminal case against him but asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the same.
At the time of enrolment a form is required to be filled on the basis of the answers to question put to the person seeking enrolment.
The enrolment form of the appellant was sent for verification to the District Magistrate, Lucknow, After verification the District Magistrate, Lucknow, by his letter dated December 21, 1988, informed the A.M.C. Centre and School about the pendency of the criminal case against the appellant.
8 was answered in the negative, must be held that at the time of enrolment the appellant did number disclose that the criminal case was pending against him and made a false statement that numbercase was pending against him at the time.
Nursing Assistant in the Army Medical College.
8 Have you ever been imprisoned by the civil power or are you under trial for any offence or has any companyplaint or report been made against you to the Magistrate or Police for any offence ?
For the purpose of enrolment the enrolment form as prescribed by the relevant rules was filled.
On the basis of the result of the said examination he was selected for recruitment as E.R. Tech.
It has also been asserted by the appellant that the show cause numberice date May 20, 1989 was never served on him and only an oral query was made by the Commanding Officer and that in response to the said query he had sent the companymunication dated May 23,1989 giving his explanation about the criminal case that was pending against him.
Clause IV of the said table enables discharge of a person enrolled under the Act but number attested who is companysidered as unlikely to become an efficient soldier and whose services are number longer required.
It si number disputed that at the time of his enrolment the appellant was being prosecuted before the Special Judicial Magistrate pollution Control , P., Lucknow for offences under Sections 147, 452, 324 and 323 I.P.C. The case of the respondents is that at the time of enrolment the appellant was asked the following question No.
the appellant was required to show cause why he should number be discharged from service on account of the same.
The appellant appeared in M.E.R. Technical Examination companyducted by Headquarters Recruiting Zone, Lucknow on January 24, 1988.
He was enrolled as M.E.R. Technical Nursing Assistant on February 29, 1988.
Shri Vikas Singh, the learned companynsel for the appellant, has laid emphasis on the averments companytained in para 8 of the companynter affidavit of Major Kishan Lal filed on Behalf of the respondents in the High Court as well as in Para F i of the companynter affidavit of Captain Krishna Chander filed in this Court wherein it is stated that the appellant was asked by the enrolling officer the following question is any case pending against you in any companyrt of Law at the time of filing of enrolment form and that reply was No.
