Introduction

This case concerns Ex-Sepoy Madan Prasad, who was dismissed from the Indian Army after repeatedly overstaying his leave without sufficient cause. The dismissal followed a Summary Court Martial (SCM) proceeding where he pleaded guilty. He challenged the dismissal, claiming the punishment was disproportionate and contrary to the Army Act, 1950. The Supreme Court examined whether the SCM had the authority to impose dismissal and whether the punishment was excessive given the circumstances.

Facts of the Case

• Enrollment & Leave: The appellant joined the Army Service Corps on 4 January 1983 as a Mechanical Transport Driver. He was granted leave from 8 November 1998 to 16 December 1998, extended till 15 January 1999.

• Absence & Desertion: He failed to return after expiry of leave and was declared a deserter from 16 January 1999 following a Court of Inquiry under Section 106 of the Army Act.

• Surrender: He surrendered on 3 May 1999, after being absent for 108 days.

• SCM Trial: On 24 August 1999, he faced a Summary Court Martial, pleaded guilty, and was dismissed from service under Section 39(b) of the Army Act.

• Appeals: His appeal under Section 164 Army Act was rejected. The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) upheld the dismissal. He then approached the Supreme Court.

Issues of the Case

1. Whether the Summary Court Martial had the authority to impose dismissal as punishment.

2. Whether the dismissal was disproportionate to the offence of overstaying leave.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the dismissal, making the following key observations:

1. Habitual Indiscipline:

   • The appellant had a history of five prior punishments for overstaying leave and absence without leave.

   • His repeated misconduct proved him to be a habitual offender.

2. Guilty Plea:

   • He pleaded guilty during the SCM, which established the charge conclusively.

3. Legal Basis for Dismissal:

   • Section 39(b) of the Army Act covers overstaying leave.

   • Sections 71 & 120 empower SCM to impose dismissal as punishment.

   • Dismissal is a lesser punishment than imprisonment, and hence legally valid.

4. Defence Service Regulations (Reg. 448):

   • These are guidelines, not binding restrictions. SCM retains discretion to impose higher punishment if justified.

5. Discipline in Armed Forces:

   • Discipline is the core foundation of military service.

   • Repeated absence could not be condoned as it sets a wrong precedent for other soldiers.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reiterated that discipline is non-negotiable in the armed forces. Given the appellant’s repeated misconduct and his guilty plea, the punishment of dismissal was held appropriate, lawful, and proportionate. The Court affirmed that SCMs have full authority to impose dismissal in such cases, and internal regulations do not limit that discretion.

The appeal was dismissed as meritless, with each party bearing their own costs.