Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108343-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8974 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ex. Rect. Om Prakash Respondent :- Union of India and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Seema Singh, Seraj Ahmad Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 07.05.2024 passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow, whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner against discharge certificate dated 22.05.2010, has been dismissed. 2. It was, inter alia, claimed by the petitioner that he was enrolled in Territorial Army on 25.12.2009 and reported for recruit training on 01.04.2010. During training, he fell ill and the matter was reported to the Commanding Officer. During the interview before the Commanding Officer, the petitioner expressed unwillingness to continue further training due to his domestic and physical problems and submitted a written application dated 16.04.2010 in his own hand writing to the Commanding Officer of the Unit requesting discharge from the Territorial Army service. The Commanding Officer sanctioned discharge of the petitioner from service w.e.f. 17.04.2010. 3. Later on, the petitioner submitted a complaint on 24.11.2010 and a legal notice dated 23.01.2012, which were suitably replied by the respondents. A writ petition was filed before the High Court in the year 2019, which was transferred to the Tribunal in the year 2022 and the transferred application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh on 03.02.2023. Whereafter the present O.A. was filed seeking setting aside of discharge order and permission to resume service. 4. Submissions have been made that the application made by the petitioner was wrongly treated as resignation and the action of the respondents in this regard was arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner was discharged from his duties without conducting medical examination. Discharge certificate should have been issued at the time of discharge. Further, provisions of Rules 15-A, 16, 16-A and 16-B were not followed and, therefore, the order impugned was bad in law. 5. The plea was contested by the respondents with the submission that the resignation was unequivocal and the Commanding Officer being empowered to sanction discharge of the recruit applicant granted discharge under Rule 16 and Rule 15 (1) of the Territorial Army Rules, 1948 (for short 'the Rules 1948'). 6. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the resignation was submitted by the applicant, which was not denied in the original application. The allegations made regarding signing the letter under pressure was not supported by any evidence and consequently, the Tribunal did not find any substance in the O.A. and dismissed the same. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions that the letter pertaining to being relieved from duty has been wrongly considered as resignation letter and consequently, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 9. The plea sought to be raised is without any basis. It is not in dispute that the communication dated 16.04.2010 was written by the petitioner wherein the subject matter has been indicated as “fo"k;%& izknsf’kd lsuk ls lsok eqfDr ds lEcU/k esa” and further it was indicated “izkFkhZ 'kkjhfjd ijs’kkuh vkSj ikfjokfjd leL;k ds dkj.k ukSdjh djus esa vleFkZ gwaA” Where after the prayer was made “vr% vkils fuosnu gS fd eq>s lsok ls eqDr dj fn;k tk;s vfr egku d`ik gksxhA” 10. The assertion made in the communication is very clear seeking lsok eqfDr i.e. discharge from service and that he was unable to serve and, therefore, may be discharged from service. As such, the plea raised in this regard apparently has no substance. 2 11. So far as the exercise of power by the Commanding Officer is concerned, Rule 16 of the Rules 1948 clearly stipulates that any enrolled person, who is desirous of being discharged, shall apply in writing to the Officer Commanding the Unit and the Sub Area Commander or an equivalent or higher Commander, is authorised to discharge such applicant. The provision is clear and specific authorising the Commander to discharge on an application made in this regard and, therefore, this plea raised pertaining to the lack of authority also apparently has no substance. 12. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 SL (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) 3 Digitally signed by :- SHYAM LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad