{"id":273529,"date":"2022-09-12T11:00:49","date_gmt":"2022-09-12T05:30:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=273529"},"modified":"2022-09-12T11:00:49","modified_gmt":"2022-09-12T05:30:49","slug":"aft-armed-forces-antedated-dismissal-whether-justified-anti-national-activities-espionage-show-cause-notice-legal-news-legal-updates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/12\/aft-armed-forces-antedated-dismissal-whether-justified-anti-national-activities-espionage-show-cause-notice-legal-news-legal-updates\/","title":{"rendered":"Whether dismissal order served without show cause notice justified when there’s suspicion of involvement in espionage & anti-national activities? Armed Forces Tribunal decides"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\n

Armed Forces Tribunal (Lucknow Bench)<\/span>: The Division Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava, Member (J) and Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve, Member (A) upheld the antedated dismissal of the applicant which was served without any show cause notice on the ground of his involvement in espionage and anti-national activities.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

In December 2006, there happened a theft case of 87 Identity Cards in the 50 Armoured Regiment. A detailed investigation was carried out by Army authorities at the highest levels which revealed that Lance Dafadar Babu Kathat of 50 Armoured Regiment was a prime suspect. Also, during further investigation, the applicant’s name was figured for communicating with Pakistan Intelligence Operatives (PIO) and it was not reported to military authorities. Further, on analysing the calls, ground verification, and interrogation, it was concluded that the applicant had links to the loss of Identity Cards and was involved in an espionage network that was controlled by the ISI agent at Gujranwala (Pakistan).<\/p>\n

The applicant also spoke to Ranjit, a resident of Sikar, who had also received conferencing calls from the United States of America. On query, the applicant denied revealing the contents of the conversation with between Ranjit, and Lance Dafadar Babu Kathat who deserted the Army on 24.12.2006 and later was killed\/committed suicide. The applicant is the last person who spoke to main suspect late Lance Dafadar Babu Kathat which again indicated the applicant’s deep involvement in the loss of Identity Cards.<\/p>\n

Dismissal Order<\/p>\n

The case was taken up with the higher authorities to dismiss the applicant from service on the ground of his involvement in espionage and anti-national activities. The Chief of the Army Staff vide letter dated 24-10-2011 passed an order for his dismissal under Section 20<\/a> of Army Act, 1950<\/a> read with Rule 17 of Army Rules, 1954<\/a> without issuing a Show Cause Notice. Accordingly, he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 28-12-2013.<\/p>\n

Contentions Raised by the Applicant<\/p>\n

The applicant submitted that though he had received a phone call on 28-12-2006 which incidentally was made from Pakistan and he talked for about 33 seconds, he was unaware that it was from Pakistan. The applicant alleged that though he was interrogated on two occasions, nothing adverse was found against him.<\/p>\n

Assailing the sudden and antedated dismissal on 28-12-2013 by an order dated 24-10-2011, the applicant contended that the dismissal order served after a lapse of more than 2 years, was a premeditated one so as to dismiss him from service on the flimsy ground of \u2018suspected person’, that too without serving him any show cause notice or giving him any opportunity of being heard. The applicant further submitted that he was allowed to continue in service and was paid a salary and other benefits during the period between 24-10-2011 to 28-12-2013. Therefore, the applicant prayed that he should either be re-instated in service or the dismissal order be converted into discharge to enable him to receive service pension along with consequential benefits.<\/p>\n

Stand Taken by the Respondent<\/p>\n

The contentions raised by the applicant were contradicted by the respondent on following grounds:<\/p>\n