D.P.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who was employed in the Indian Air Force, was discharged from service w.e.f. June 20, 1972 and his grievance is that the order of his discharge is illegal and deserves to be quashed. The petitioner was initially enrolled in the Indian Air Force as a Combatant Airman on November 18, 1963 and he subsequently worked there in various capacities, such as Air craftsman Class II, Aircraftsman Class I, leading Air craftsman and Corporal His original appointment was for a period of nine years as a regular Airman and thereafter for six years as a reserved personnel According to the petitioner, the regular period of his engagement was subsequently enlarged to 15 years. On April 8, 1972, a discharge order was passed authorizing the Station Commander Indian Air Force Station, Sambra, to discharge the petitioner from service after allowing him to avail of the full leave which might be due to him In pursuance of the aforesaid order, a discharge certificate was issued to the petitioner on April 21, 1972 and thereafter he was allowed two months leave w.e.f. April 21, 1972. Thus, the petitioner's discharge from the Indian Air Force became effective on June 20, 1972. The case of the petitioner is that in March 1971, he was told by a superior officer that the Criminal Intelligence Department Jodhpur had made a report against him that he was furnishing some information to the Pakistan Government was, thus acting against the interests of the country, but the petitioner had denied having done anything of that sort According to the petitioner, further enquiries were made by the Criminal Intelligence Department Officials from petitioner's father and other relations in their village and a police officer allegedly submitted some report, on the basis of an allegation that the petitioner was sending reports about defence matters to Pakistan. The petitioner stand is that he was always a also and faithful employee of this country and the reports against him emanated on account of mutual rivalries in the town of Phalodi, of which the petitioner is a resident. Thus, according the petitioner, his discharge from service was an act victimisation and had no real basis. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents were required under the relevant rules to assigning some valid reason for the discharge of the petitioner and as no lawful reason has been assigned, the order of discharge of the petitioner is invalid.
(2.) THE case of the respondents, on the other hand, is that they were entitled to discharge the petitioner from the service of the Indian Air Force without assigning any reason and that the order of discharge cannot be challenged on the ground that reasons which led to the discharge of the petitioner were not communicated to him. The petitioner placed reliance in support of his submission on the provisions of Rule 15 of the Air Force Rules, 1969 and according to him, the order of discharge on the basis that his services were 'no longer required' could have been passed only in two circumstances, namely, due to reduction in establishment or reorganization or on the ground that he was unsuitable for retention in the Indian Air Force. The respondents in their reply, however, contended that the Air Force Rules, 1959 relied upon by the petitioner came into force only on June 1, 1972 and the said Rules were not in force at the time when either the order of his discharge was passed on April 8, 1972 or even when the discharge certificate was issued to the petitioner on April 51, 1972. According to the respondents, Indian Air Force Rules 1932 (hereinafter referred to 'the 1932 Rules') were in force at the relevant time when the discharge certificate was issued to the petitioner in April, 1972 and than under Clause VIII of Rule 13 of the 1932 Rules, the authority passing the order of discharge of the petitioner from the service of the Indian Air Force. After the arguments in this writ petition had concluded on October 10, 1977, it was discovered that the provisions of 13 of the 1932 Rules were amended by the Amendment Rules of 1963 vide S.R.O. No. 25 dated January 4, 1963 published in the Gazette of India dated January 25, 1964 and thereby Rule 13, as it existed in the 1932 Rules was substituted by an entirely new rule, the rule the portion of which runs as under: 13. Authorities empowered to authorise discharge: (1)Each of the authorities specified in column 3 of the table below shall be the authority competent in respect of persons subject to the act specified in column 1 thereof, for the cause specified in column 2 and in the manner specified in column 4, to discharge such persons from the service. n (2)Any power conferred by this rule on any of the aforesaid authorities may also be exercised by any other authority superior to it. TABLEPerson enrolled under the Act who have been attested. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Class Cause of Discharge Competent Specialauthority Instructi -to author - onsrisedischarge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Officers All causes The A notificationof the of discharge Central in the OfficialIndian Government Gazette of theAir Force retirement of anofficer, the relinquishment of his commiss -ion etc. shallbe deemed to bea discharge with in the meaning of Sub -section (2) Section 2 of the Act1 2 3 4XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX VII His services no Director oflonger required : - (a) Due to reduction Personnelin establishment or (Airmen)to reorganisation.(b) Unsuitable for Air Officerretention in the I/cAir Force (on Administrationdisciplinary grounds) VIII All other classes Air Officerof discharge I/c Administr -ationXXXX XXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXXX
(3.) NOW , the parties are at agreement that the discharge of the fetitioner from service has taken place in a cordance with the provisions of the 1932 Rules, as amended by the aforesaid amendment Rules of 1932. substituting Rule 13 by the provisions reproduced above The argument advanced by the learned Counsel or the petitioner is flat the discharge of an Airman on the ground that his services were 'no longer required' could be effected only under Clause VII of Rule 13, on the fulfilment of one to the two conditions specified therein, and as in the case of the petitioner none of the aforesaid two conditions was satisfied, the discharge of the petitioner was invalid. Mr Lodha, learned Counsel appearing for respondents, however contended that the discharge order of the petitioner was not passed under Clause VII of Rule 11 but it was passed under Clause VIII of the aforesaid Rule and that reference has been made to the said provision in the discharge order.;