Recommendation by Release Medical Board is a mandatory condition precedent for discharging low medical category personnel.

The Petitioner joined the Indian Army as a Sepoy in the EME Branch on 15.03.2011

In 2020, he was diagnosed with Primary Hypertension and subsequently recategorized into a Permanent Low Medical Category (LMC) P2(P) with 30% disability on 25.01.2021

On 24.11.2021, the Respondents served a Show Cause Notice (SCN) proposing to terminate his service due to the disability

Although the Petitioner expressed his willingness to continue service and reach the 15-year minimum pensionable service threshold, the Officer Commanding (OC) recorded his "indifferent attitude" toward duties and recommended non-retention

Consequently, a discharge order was issued on 11.01.2022 under Rule 13(3), Clause III(iii)(a)(i) of the Army Rules, 1954

The Petitioner challenged this before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which disposed of the application and a subsequent review

The Petitioner then approached the High Court, asserting that the discharge was initiated without the mandatory Release Medical Board and contrary to statutory rules

1. Whether the discharge of the Petitioner under Rule 13(3) Clause III(iii)(a)(i) was legally sustainable in the absence of a recommendation from a Release Medical Board as a condition precedent

2. Whether the Respondents failed to comply with the mandate of Army Order 46/80 and Guidelines of 2010 by discharging the Petitioner before he completed his minimum pensionable service of 15 years

3. Whether "indifferent attitude" constitutes a valid ground for discharge under the medical category provisions of Rule 13(3)

Rule 13(3) Clause III(iii)(a)(i) of the Army Rules, 1954, which stipulates that a person in permanent LMC SHAPE 2/3 may be discharged by the Commanding Officer only on the recommendation of a Release Medical Board when no sheltered appointment is available

Army Order 46 of 1980 and the Guidelines of 30.09.2010, which establish that LMC personnel should ordinarily be retained in service to complete the minimum qualifying service for pension (15 years for Sepoys)

Union of India v. Rajpal Singh (2009) 1 SCC 216, which held that the procedure prescribed under Rule 13 for discharging an officer on medical grounds must be scrupulously followed, necessitating a medical board's recommendation prior to discharge

The Court found that the Respondents failed to satisfy the jurisdictional conditions of Rule 13(3) Clause III(iii)(a)(i). First, the mandatory Release Medical Board (RMB) recommendation was absent; the discharge order was issued on 11.01.2022, whereas RMB documents were only prepared on 04.02.2022

The Court clarified that "indifferent attitude" is a disciplinary issue governed by separate administrative procedures and cannot be used to trigger a medical discharge under Rule 13(3)

The Court held that the Respondents ignored the mandate of AO 46/80 and the 2010 Guidelines, which require "all endeavours" to be made to retain SHAPE 2/3 personnel until they qualify for a pension, as such individuals are not per-se unfit for all Army duties

The Court ordered the Petitioner's reinstatement with effect from 31.05.2022, granting him all consequential benefits, including continuity of service, seniority, and back wages with 8% interest per annum on arrears if delayed