The Supreme Court has upheld a frequently absent army jawan’s discharge from military service, saying a member of the armed forces cannot take his duty lightly and stay away at will.

The recent judgment came as the court dismissed an appeal Satgur Singh had filed against an April 2014 order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh, which had upheld the jawan’s discharge from service.

“A member of the armed forces cannot take his duty lightly and abstain from duty at his will. Since the absence of duty was on several different occasions for which he was imposed punishment of imprisonment, therefore, the order of discharge cannot be said to be unjustified,” the bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta said. “The commanding officer has recorded that the appellant is a habitual offender. Such fact is supported by absence of the appellant from duty on seven occasions.”

Singh had seven red ink entries during his 11 years, 9 months and 15 days of service.

The jawan’s unit had in September 2004 served him a show-cause notice that said he had proved himself undesirable and retaining him in service would not be suitable because of the seven punishments he had received: twice in the years 1995, 2000 and 2004 and once in 1998.

Singh in his response said he did not have any other source of income to look after his children, admitted he had blundered because of family problems and said he would not commit a single mistake again.

On November 26, 2004, the general officer commanding, 24 Infantry Division, recorded that the appellant was a habitual offender and, therefore, should be discharged from service.

The tribunal too upheld his discharge.

Singh then moved the Supreme Court where Justice Gupta, who authored the recent judgment, said the appellant had not offered any explanation in his reply except vague family circumstances.

“In reply to the show-cause notice, the appellant has not given any explanation of his absence from duty on seven occasions. He has been punished on each occasion for rigorous imprisonment ranging from 2 days to 28 days,” the court said.

“…In view thereof, we do not find any error in the order of discharge of the appellant. Appeal is dismissed.”