Chinnappa Reddy, J. - (1.) When judgment was pronounced in Civil Appeal No. 475 of 1976 (Virendra Kumar v. Union of India), it was thought that an unhappy litigation had come to a happy ending. But it was not so. It appears that Civil Appeal No. 475 of 1976 was only a prelude to a long drawn out acrimonious and dogged litigation, both parties to which appeared to us to be blameworthy. On the one hand, the matter appears to be viewed by the authorities as one of prestige, that is, false prestige and hurt-dignity. On the other hand. there is misplaced determination coupled with a sense of an emotional hurt on the side of the Captain.
(2.) The approach of the authorities is illustrated by the following statement in the counter-affidavit filed on their behalf by Major S. Krishna, Officiating Military Secretary Army Headquarters "It is respectfully submitted that the honour and prestige, the faith and trust of the Armed Forces is at stake and if it is lost, it cannot be regained irrespective of the amount of effort to that end" It is difficult to imagine how the very 'honour and prestige' of the Armed Forces can ever be at stake in a litigation such as this. The attitude of the officer is revealed by the irascible manner of the conduct of the litigation.
(3.) We will now proceed to state the minimum basic facts, necessary and relevant but no more. We refrain from referring to facts considered by us to be unnecessary. Captain Virendra Kumar joined the Army on February 14 1965 as an Emergency Commissioned Officer He sustained war injury. On September 30. 1970, he was released from the Army having been placed in Permanent low medical category'. His Commission was revoked by a notification of the President. He challenged his release by filing a writ petition in the Delhi High Court and by taking up the matter in further appeal to this court after the writ petition was dismissed by the Delhi High Court. His appeal (Civil Appeal No. 475 of 1976) was allowed by this court on April 22, 1980. It was held by this court as follows: "............The consequence is that the order of termination of service is invalid for failure to adhere to basic procedure ......... The inevitable result of the invalidation of the termination of service is that the officer comes back into service and, therefore, the salary due to him from the time of his formal release or termination down-to-date will have to be paid. We direct that this be done within three months from today. The fact that the order of release or termination is invalid for non-compliance with the procedural requirements does not make the officer a permanent or regular Commissioned Officer. His services are still liable to be terminated, but the correct procedure has to be followed. It looks as if the appellant has suffered a physical disability in action and the Chief of the Army Staff has full power to act and may either resort to Rule 15 or 15(A) and deal with him on that footing or may allot to him some sedentary position consistent with his physical condition and his otherwise proven talent ............." The judgment of this court was pronounced on April 22, 1980. The three months' time given by the court for. compliance with its directions expired on July 21, 1980. On the last day, that is, on July 21, 1980, the Union of India filed a review petition which was ultimately dismissed on 1st October, 1980. The review petition contained some unworthy comments on the judgment. But the court preferring to ignore the comments observed: "We confine ourselves to the merits of the grounds and ignore comments made in the petition about the observations in the judgment. We do not think that the grounds .put forward justify a review of the judgment. So we dismiss the review petition." It appears that after the review petition was dismissed, proposals were initiated on October 13, 1980 for payment of the arrears of the back salary as directed by the judgment. In the meanwhile on September 19, 1980, the officer filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 11343 of 1980 to commit the respondent for contempt of court for not complying with the direction of the court in Civil Appeal No. 475 of 1976.;