Delhi High Court
Manas Malara vs Union Of India & Ors. on 31 January, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 31st January, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 6309/2010
MANAS MALARA ..... Petitioner
Through: Major K.Ramesh (Retd.),
Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. Petitioner was selected as a cadet at the National Defence
Academy, Khadakwasla on 03.07.2007 and joined the Academy;
on a date not disclosed.
2. Notwithstanding petitioner being good at sports, was found
to be a trouble some cadet. Breaking the rules of the Academy
he consumed alcohol and noting that various warnings had been
administered to him from time to time, taking a serious view of
petitioner having consumed alcohol on 29.03.2009, he was
relegated from 118 Course to 119 Course, intimation whereof
was given to petitioner's father.
3. Unfortunately, for the petitioner he did not make any
amend, evidenced by the fact that thereafter various warnings
and advisories issued to him stand recorded in his record profile.
Another incident took place on 24.07.2010 when petitioner was
found to be in possession of a mobile phone and other electrical
equipment which he was not supposed to possess.
4. Taking note of the incident and also considering that after
he was relegated once and inspite of various warnings and
advisories being issued there was no improvement, the petitioner
was relegated for a second time to the 120th Course.
5. Simultaneously it was detected that the petitioner
accumulated 190 negative points and which attracted the policy
No.010001-CDT and the policy dated 28.07.2006 as per which
the cadet can be recommended for withdrawal under Para-12 of
the policy, action was taken and order was communicated to the
father of the petitioner and also the petitioner that he was
recommended to be withdrawn from the Academy.
6. The petitioner has admittedly earned 190 negative points,
which negative points being awarded to him has not been
questioned by the petitioner. The petitioner also does not dispute
the incident dated 24.07.2010 when he was found to be in
possession of a mobile phone in his cabin as also a mobile
broadband data card and Tata Photon Plus for which he earned
21 restrictions. The justification of the petitioner is that he had
detected the same with a fellow cadet and being a Division Cadet
Captain had seized the same but before he could hand over the
same to the superior officer, the same were recovered from him,
is unbelievable for the reason the recovery thereof was not only
from the person of the petitioner but was when the petitioner
was in his cabin. We note that the petitioner never so stated till
he filed the instant petition.
7. Thus, if the 21 restrictions inflicted upon the petitioner
pertaining to the incident dated 24.07.2010 are to be taken into
account, undisputed position would be that the negative points
earned by the petitioner would be 190.
8. The only question which needs to be considered is whether
name of the petitioner could be recommended for being
withdrawn as a cadet from the Academy.
9. Para-12 of the policy pertaining to withdrawal reads as
under:-
"12. A cadet be recommended for withdrawal, on any
of the following grounds:-
(a) Failing to make the grade in academic subjects
in spite of relegations and warnings for
withdrawals.
(b) Failing to achieve the minimum standard in
outdoor training, service subjects, or sports in
spite of relegations and warnings for withdrawal.
(c) Failing to achieve the acceptable standards in
basic character and other officer-like-qualities in
spite of relegations and warnings for withdrawal.
(d) Disciplinary grounds.
(e) On being Absent without leave for more than 30
days.
(f) Medical grounds.
(g) After one relegation in a particular semester, if
he is recommended for relegation again in the
same semester for reasons other than medical.
(h) After having been relegated twice during his stay
in the academic, and recommended for
relegation again for reasons other than medical.
(j) If a cadet is required to be relegated more than
three times on medical grounds."
10. Suffice would it be to state that under clause (h) of Para-12
of the policy a cadet having been relegated twice during his stay
in the Academy would be liable to be recommended for
withdrawal if he is recommended for relegation again for reasons
other than medical.
11. The contention urged was that the misdemeanour dated
24.07.2010 was the cause of the second relegation and thus the
same could not be taken into account to relegate the petitioner
for the third time.
12. We do not agree with the submission for the reason
relegation of a cadet of a misdemeanor is a facet different than
the facet of a candidate accumulating more than 180 negative
points, which itself necessitates further relegation, as per para
58(d)(iii) of the policy No.010001-CDT.
13. To put it differently, it may happen that due to a
misdemeanour the candidate suffers further disability of crossing
the mark of 180 negative points. This would mean that two
consequences will follow. One would be strictly in relation to the
misdemeanour and the other would be the cumulative result of
negative points earned.
14. The record of warnings, photocopy whereof placed before
us shows a most unhealthy picture, notwithstanding the
petitioner being a good sports person and otherwise a keen hard
working boy. It evidences the petitioner to be of a
temperamental nature and prone to indiscipline. We may note
that the concept of 190 negative points and as a consequence
further relegation is as per para-58 (d) (iii) of the punishment
policy No.010001-CDT.
15. The writ petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J
SURESH KAIT, J
JANUARY 31, 2011
'nks'
