HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12798 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. Heard Sri Chandan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel & D.S.G.I. assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents nos.1 to 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs :- I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the impugned discharge order dated 15.12.2016 passed by the Commandant, RVC Centre and College, Meerut, the communication dated 31.05.2017 issued by RVC Records rejecting the Petitioner's representations, and the judgment and order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow in O.A. No. 391 of 2020; II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of to Mandamus, commanding the Respondents reinstate the Petitioner in service with all consequential benefits, including continuity of service, pay and allowances, seniority, and other service benefits as admissible in law; III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, declaring that the Petitioner's Statutory Petition under Para 364/365 of the Regulations for the Army, filed against the discharge order, shall be deemed to have been rejected on account of non-disposal, and consequently quashing such deemed rejection as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raj Kumar Mishra, Abhishek Pandey, Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Upasna Mishra, Yogesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I. Ex Rect. Jitendra Yadav .....Petitioner(s) U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Defence South Block New Delhi And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 05.05.2015. At the time of his enrollment, a verification of his character was made and nothing adverse was found against him. Subsequently, a complaint was submitted, pursuant to which a re-verification was conducted. The District Magistrate, Etawah, by his letter dated 09.11.2016, intimated that the petitioner was an accused in a criminal case under Sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506 of the I.P.C., read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On the basis of such information, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and he was later dismissed from service. The petitioner filed a representation against such dismissal, which was also rejected. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Original Application No. 391 of 2020 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow, praying for quashing of the discharge order dated 15.12.2016 and for his reinstatement in service. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was only 15 years of age at the time when the F.I.R. was lodged against him on 16.04.2013 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506 of the I.P.C., read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by his sister-in-law, who had a matrimonial dispute with his brother. The petitioner was never informed by the Investigating Officer that he was required in the said criminal case, which had been lodged at a police station different from the police station where the petitioner resided. He was never informed of any summons issued to him as an accused by any Court or Magistrate on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, at the time of signing the application form, in response to the query made at point no.7(1) of the verification roll, the petitioner had replied "No." The said answer was treated by the respondents as a deliberate misrepresentation amounting to fraud, on the basis of which his services were terminated as aforesaid. There is no finding recorded regarding whether the petitioner had any knowledge of the F.I.R. lodged against him by his sister-in-law in April 2013. Moreover, the petitioner was a student of Class 9 and only 15 years old at the time and was, therefore, a juvenile. WRIA No. 12798 of 2025 2 The Tribunal has also not recorded any finding as to whether the petitioner had deliberately misrepresented or played fraud upon the competent authority. Instead, it merely relied upon the facts stated by the respondents and upon case law relating to fraud, without first recording a finding as to whether any fraud was actually committed by the petitioner. We have gone through the judgment and order impugned and find that the questions framed by the Tribunal have been mentioned in paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment; however, the Tribunal has not framed any question as to whether the applicant was aware of the F.I.R. lodged against him by his sister-in-law in April 2013, when he was only 15 years of age and whether, despite such knowledge, he had submitted incorrect information in the verification roll. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and order impugned and remand the matter to the Armed Forces Tribunal to frame an issue as to whether the applicant had any knowledge of his being an accused in the F.I.R. lodged against him on 16.04.2013, then record a finding thereon and pass an appropriate order in the light of the relevant case laws. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. November 4, 2025 Ashish Dewal WRIA No. 12798 of 2025 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench