The appellant, a Rifleman in the 10th Assam Rifles, was discharged from service on 18.01.2008 (FN) vide discharge certificate dated 16.01.2008 after incurring four red ink entries. A warning letter dated 07.10.2006 had noted three red ink entries during 5 years, 4 months, and 17 days of service. A show-cause notice dated 14.12.2007 cited four red ink entries as on 30.11.2007. The appellant alleged the reply to the show-cause notice was fabricated, as he could not read or write Hindi, and that no enquiry was held. He filed an RTI application in 2017, which was denied. He filed W.P.(C) No. 188/2018, withdrew it in 2019, and filed W.P.(C) No. 72/2021, which was dismissed by a Single Judge on 20.05.2024 on grounds of delay and laches, and on the merits that the show-cause notice and discharge order were issued under the Assam Rifles Act, 1941, and the four red ink entries were admitted facts.
The Division Bench upheld the dismissal. Applying Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Thangappan (2006) 4 SCC 322, Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B. (2009) 1 SCC 768, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply v. T.T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108, and Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley (2024) 15 SCC 215, the court held that writ relief under Article 226 is discretionary and may be refused for inordinate and unexplained delay. The appellant slept over his rights for almost a decade, filed RTI only in 2017, and approached court in 2018; the delay was not satisfactorily explained in the writ petition itself. The court also found the appellant's signature on the discharge order dated 16.01.2008, confirming receipt.
On the merits, the court noted the respondents' contention that prior punishments under the Army Act were imposed when the appellant was under operational control of the Army, and the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 came into force only in 2009. The show-cause notice and discharge order were issued under Section 4(a) of the Assam Rifles Act, 1941, read with ROI 4/99 and Para 24 of the Assam Rifles Manual. The four red ink entries were never challenged in any proceeding. The court distinguished Veerendra Kumar Dubey v. Chief of Army Staff (2016) 2 SCC 627, where the Supreme Court held four red ink entries do not mandate discharge, by holding that even if that principle applied, the appellant's inordinate delay disentitled him to equitable relief. The appeals based on Central Inland Water Transport, State of M.P. v. Bhola, and Selvi J. Jayalalithaa were found inapplicable. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
