Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta

JUDGMENT

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. Delay condoned. Appeals admitted.

2. The challenge in the present appeals is to orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal¹, Regional Bench, Lucknow on October 21, 2011, May 28, 2013 and June 30, 2014 whereby, challenge to the discharge of the Appellant from service on August 31, 1993 remained unsuccessful.

3. The Appellant was enrolled in the Army as a Washerman on October 23, 1987. He was discharged from service on medical grounds on August 31, 1993 due to "CNS (IN) Seizure" when he was put in Low Medical Category BEE on August 27, 1992. Appellant, aggrieved against the discharge, submitted statutory complaint on August 11, 2007 wherein, the stand of the Appellant was that no show-cause notice was given to him by the Commanding Officer who sanctioned discharge Under Rule 13(3) Item III (v) of the Army Rules, 1954². Such statutory complaint was declined on October 12, 2007, inter alia, on the ground that though the Appellant has given his option to serve in the sheltered appointment but no sheltered appointment was available commensurate with the trade to suitably employ in the public interest. Therefore, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Order 46 of 1980 read with Rule 13(3) Item III(v) of the Rules.

4. The Appellant filed writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad but subsequently on commencement of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow. The learned Tribunal found that the Appellant was placed in permanent Low Medical Category BEE and was discharged from service on August 31, 1993 with only 05 years 11 months and 08 days of service. The Classified Specialist has put the following restrictions on the Appellant:

not be allowed to swim or work near fire or moving machinery and also to handle firearms to ensure seizure precautions.

Therefore, he could not be employed in other sheltered appointment in public interest. The Tribunal found that the Appellant has been given disability pension @20% for five years.

5. Some of the relevant provisions of the Rules need to be reproduced:

13. Authorities empowered to authorize discharge.-(1) Each of the authorities specified in column 3 of the Table below shall be the competent authority to discharge service person subject to the Act specified in column 1 thereof on the grounds specified in column 2.

xx xx xx

TABLE

Category	Grounds of discharge	Competent authority to authorise discharge	Manner of discharge
1	2	3	4