Army dismissal procedure under Rule 17 upheld where the competent authority certified impracticability and reporting, not prior approval, was required.

Rule 17 of the Army Rules permits dismissal or removal without the ordinary notice procedure where the competent military authority records that compliance is not expedient or reasonably practicable and issues the required certificate. On the stated facts, the Chief of the Army Staff considered the materials, recorded the requisite satisfaction, and invoked the proviso lawfully; the action was not shown to be mala fide or arbitrary. The rule also requires reporting to the Central Government after such action, not prior approval. The challenge to the dismissal therefore failed, and the dismissal was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the dismissal of the appellant without following the ordinary procedure under Rule 17 of the Army Rules, 1954 was valid under the proviso to that rule; (ii) whether prior approval of the Central Government was required when action was taken under the proviso to Rule 17.

Issue (i): whether the dismissal of the appellant without following the ordinary procedure under Rule 17 of the Army Rules, 1954 was valid under the proviso to that rule.

Analysis: Rule 17 requires that a person not be dismissed or removed without being informed of the particulars of the cause of action and allowed reasonable time to respond. The proviso carves out an exception where the competent authority forms the opinion that compliance is not expedient or reasonably practicable, certifies that position, and then orders dismissal or removal. The record showed that the Chief of the Army Staff had considered the materials, recorded the requisite satisfaction, and issued the certificate contemplated by the proviso. The invocation of the proviso was therefore supported by the materials and was not shown to be mala fide or arbitrary.

Conclusion: The dismissal was valid under the proviso to Rule 17 and was not vitiated for want of compliance with the ordinary procedure.

Issue (ii): whether prior approval of the Central Government was required when action was taken under the proviso to Rule 17.

Analysis: The rule requires reporting to the Central Government in cases where dismissal or removal is ordered without following the prescribed procedure. It does not mandate prior approval. The record showed that the matter had been reported as required. The contention that Central Government approval was a condition precedent was therefore unsupported by the rule.

Conclusion: Prior approval of the Central Government was not required; reporting after action was sufficient.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the dismissal failed, and the appellate interference was unwarranted. The orders below were sustained and the appeals stood rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: When the competent military authority certifies, on objective consideration, that compliance with the ordinary dismissal procedure is not expedient or reasonably practicable, action under the proviso to Rule 17 is valid, and the rule requires reporting to the Central Government rather than prior approval.

---