Ex-Gunner Hoshiar Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 1154 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. This matter was taken up on different dates earlier. Counsel for the petitioner was placing strong reliance on annexure R-1, which is annexed to the rejoinder. The said document was not produced and annexed with the writ petition. After the respondents submitted their counter affidavit, the said document came to be filed by the petitioner in this court along with the rejoinder.

2. On 13th September, 2004, when the matter was taken up it was pointed out by the respondents that there are interpolations in the said document - Annexure R-1 at page 11. Therefore, a direction was issued to the petitioner to place the original of the said document in order to verify as to whether or not there is only interpolation in the said document. It was pointed out by the respondents that the endorsements in page 9 of Annexure R-1 at running page 31, are interpolations by the petitioner.

3. In the counter affidavit the plea taken by the respondents was that the petitioner sought premature discharge from service at his own request before fulfillling conditions of his enrolment as it is evident from the extracts of the Long Roll. It was also stated that name of the petitioner was struck off from the army with effect from 9.12.1976 and not on medical ground as stated in the petition. It was also stated in the said counter affidavit that the petitioner was in the medical category AYE at the time of discharge from the army. The specific stand of the respondents is that since the petitioner was discharged from service in medical category AYE and that he had not completed minimum 15 years of service, and therefore, he was not eligible for grant of either service pension or disability pension in terms of para 132 and para 173 of Pension Regulations for Army 1961.

4. The petitioner for controverting the said stand taken placed reliance on annexure R-1 and, therefore, this Court directed that the original of the said Annexure R-1 should be placed on record to ascertain the conflicting stand being taken by the parties hereto. The petitioner thereafter sought time and at his request time was extended on two occasions to enable the petitioner to place on record the original of the said Annexure R-1. On 1.10.2004 when the matter was again listed, it was made clear that in case the petitioner is unable to produce the original of Annexure R-1, it would be presumed that the said Annexure R-1 does not exist.

5. Today when the matter is taken up counsel for the petitioner is trying to explain his inability to produce the said original document by stating that the petitioner lost the original of the said Annexure R-1. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a First Information Report lodged by the petitioner. The said First Information Report is dated 6.10.2004. It is, therefore, evident that the First Information Report is lodged after the order was passed by this court directing the petitioner to place original of the said document on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner sought to bring into evidence record with interpolations and a document, which in fact does not exist. The petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of this court in Satish Khosla v. M/s Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Ltd. & Another reported in 1998 I AD (Delhi) 927 as also to the decision of the Supreme Court in The Chancellor and another v. Dr. Bijaynanda Kar and others wherein under similar circumstances the Supreme Court observed that if a person does not come to the court with clean hands the petition could be thrown out on that ground.

7. On going through the records also we find that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of disability pension as the petitioner was discharged of his own request and not on medical ground. The petition is also filed after 26 years of his discharge and, therefore, there is not only inordinate and unexplained delay but the records of the case also came to be destroyed by the respondents due to long passage of time.

8. We find no merit in the petition. The same stands dismissed.