REPORTABLE

2024 INSC 804

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 6186 of 2018

S. P. PANDEY …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

1. The appellant is not satisfied that the Armed Forces Tribunal,

Jaipur has allowed his OA and quashed the order of Admonition passed

against him on 18.01.2011. He demands compensation for the

wrongful order by filing the present appeal. We agreed with him and for

reasons to follow, allowed the appeal and granted compensation.

2. Facts of the case are that the appellant was enrolled in the Indian

Air Force in 1997 as Airman in the trade of Radar Fitter. At the relevant

time, he was posted on the strength of 333 TRU C/o 5 FBSU, Air Force

where he commenced work from 16.11.2009.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Indu Marwah
Date: 2024.10.21

2.1 The incident in question occurred on 17.05.2010, at about 14.20

18:19:16 IST
Reason:

hrs when he was returning home from duty. On his way back, he had
1
to stop at a railway crossing in a civil area which was closed. The gate

was closed due to transit of a train. The allegation against the appellant

is that, instead of waiting behind the vehicles already in line at the

railway crossing, he overtook all the vehicles, went straight ahead and

parked his motorcycle in front of the railway gate.

2.2 Respondent No. 7 a Sqn Ldr (Squadron Leader) who was also

waiting for the railway barrier to open, approached the appellant and

in ‘exercise of the responsibility’ conferred on officers of the Air Forces

under Para 565 of the Regulations questioned the appellant for

overtaking all vehicles, pulled out the motorcycle keys and directed the

him to park his motorcycle in Guard Room. The respondent no. 7

handed over the keys to Duty NCO and informed the appellant that his

motorcycle is being confiscated for not following good order and Air

Force discipline. This led to an argument between the appellant and

respondent No. 7 wherein the appellant allegedly used insubordinate

language (yah kaya gundagardi hai) contrary to Air Force discipline.

Respondent No. 7 ordered closed arrest of the appellant and informed

the Commanding Officer and the Adjutant of the Unit. Charge sheet for

two offences, i.e. “Violation of good order and Air Force Discipline” and

“Use of insubordinate language to a superior officer” was drawn against

the appellant.

2
2.3 The charge was tried by Officiating Commanding Officer on

18.05.2010 and an order of Admonition was passed on the same day.

However, respondent No. 4 the Station Cdr. 5 FBSU sought sanction

for expunction of punishment entry from the documents of the

appellant and to proceed with de novo trial of the appellant for the

above alleged misconduct on the technical ground that sanction under

Section 83 of the Air Force Act, 1950 was not obtained.

2.4 The appellant preferred a statutory complaint dated 24.05.2010.

This led to a formal investigation as ordered by respondent No. 4 to

bring out the fact of allegation made by the appellant against

respondent No. 7 and it was reported that the allegations made by the

appellant were false. However, by letter dated 23.06.2010 the appellant

was assured that punishment dated 18.05.2010 would be cancelled

and the Admonition entry will be expunged from the record. Relevant

portion of letter of Sqn Ldr. Fit Cdr. HRM Ft dated 23.06.2010 is as

under:-

“REPLY TO ROG APPLICATION

1. Reference is made to your application dated 24 May 10.
2. You, are interviewed by the Station Commander in two
sessions on 18 and 21 June 10 and all the issues brought out by
you were addressed. Formal Investigation was ordered to bring
out the fact of the allegations made by you against Sqn Ldr HV
Pandey (27441) F (P). From the FI, it is clear that allegation made
against Sqn officer were false. You were told by the Stn Cdr that
punishment given to you dated 18 May 10 by CO 333 TRU will
be cancelled and entry will be expunged from the documents.
3. Application being devoid of merit, is disposed, herewith.
3
 4. You are requested to give written acknowledgement regarding
receipt of disposal of your application.”
(emphasis supplied)

3. Consequently, by order dated 24.06.2010 the appellant was

intimated that charges raised against him have been expunged under

33(1) of the Regulation and punishment entry has been deleted from

his service documents. The order reads as follows:

“Tel: AFNET/7742 333TRU, AF

C/0 56 APO
PIN-937333
333 TRU/C 951/2/P1 24 Jun 10
742490-K Cpl SP Pandey Rad Fit
EXPUNGEMENTT OF PUNISHMENT
1. Reference is made to 5 FBSU, AF letter No 5FBSU/C 102/1/P1 dated 23
Jun 10.
2. It is intimated that the punishment awarded to you by the undersigned
on 18 May 10 in connection with the charge sheet raised by Sqn Ldr HV
Pandey ((27441) F (P) of 4 Sqn has been expunged under rule 33 (1) of
the Regulation of the Air Force. The punishment entry has been deleted
from the conduct sheet of your service documents.
3. This is for your information.
Sd/- zz
(R Putatunda)
Fit Lt
CO”

4. This litigation would not have survived if the above referred letter

had been given effect to. That didn’t happen. Wg Cdr V.K. Mohan

proceeded de novo against the same charge and ordered for recording

of Summary of Evidence on 30.06.2010. The appellant preferred a

representation to the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief with the prayer

4
to stay operation of order dated 30.06.2010 for recording of Summary

of Evidence and prohibit the Commanding Officer to conduct the

second trial for the same charges. The representation preferred by the

appellant was rejected by Chief of Air Staff vide order dated 06.01.2011.

5. In the circumstances, a second Admonition order was passed

against the appellant dated 18.01.2011. He appealed to respondent No.

2 and even this was rejected on 28.04.2011. The representation to the

Chief of Air Staff for reconsideration of order dated 06.01.2011 which

was also rejected on the ground of it being repetitive in nature.

6. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the Armed Forces

Tribunal by filing an Original Application. After hearing the appellant

and the respondents and having gone through the materials and

records before it, the Tribunal set aside the punishment of ‘Admonition’

passed against the appellant vide order dated 18.01.2011. It is

important to extract the conclusion of the Tribunal, the relevant part

of the order is extracted as follows:

“11. Before proceeding further we may recall that the

punishment awarded to the petitioner is of 'admonition'. Learned
counsel for the respondents submitted that on date, the petitioner
has retired from service and any further indulgence would gain
no fruitful result even if the punishment of 'admonition' is set
aside and now the issue involved remains only of academic
interest.
12. Be that as it may, we feel it worth mentioning that from the
sequence of events on record, it is evident that the entire episode
got triggered by the fact that in a civil area, i.e. at a railway
crossing, the petitioner, like many other service/civil motor
5
cyclists had overtaken the long queue of cars to position
themselves in front row, close to the railway crossing barrier. No
doubt, it is expected of every Air Warrior/Airman to uphold
highest degree of discipline inside and outside his service place.
But at the same time, from the events noticed hereinbefore, it is
borne out that the petitioner had overtaken the parked four
wheelers and motorcycles on a public road near the railway
crossing barrier and had parked his motorcycle in the front row,
may be to avoid rush of traffic when the barrier opened. It
appears that this gesture of the petitioner was taken as an
affront by the Sqn Ldr H.V. Pandey and he approached the
petitioner from the rear and forcefully took away the keys of the
motorcycle; confiscated the motorcycle on the ground that the
petitioner violated traffic rules and general road discipline,
ordered the petitioner to report to the guard room and took the
applicant in custody. It was on his orders the petitioner was
locked in a cell. The strict action taken by Sqn Ldr H.V. Pandey
in a public place over a trivial issue cannot at the same time be
appreciated. Even if in the opinion of Sqn Ldr H.V. Pandey the
petitioner had committed some wrong in public place, the
circumstances of the case required him to have advised the
petitioner to mend his ways in future keeping in view the high
discipline and dignity of the Air Force. But the manner in which
the whole incident was highlighted in full public gaze, and
consequent action taken by him, permitting a trivial happening to
escalate out of proportion, cannot be appreciated. An offence is
an officer and his behaviour should also be officer-like. His
behaviour has to set up an example. The incident could have
been handled by the officer more appropriately.
13. From the record, it is revealed that the petitioner was
assured in writing on two occasions that the punishment entry
will be expunged. Despite that, the respondent chose to proceed
afresh. It gives an indication of vindictiveness and perhaps it
was instigated by the officer.
14. For reasons mentioned hereinabove, we are of the
considered view that the Summary of Evidence and punishment
of 'admonition" awarded to the applicant deserve to be set aside.
15. Accordingly, punishment of 'admonition' dated 18.01.2011
awarded to the petitioner is set aside. Impugned order dated
28.04.2011 (Annexure-27 to the petition), and order dated
06.01.2010 (Annexure-25 to the petition) are also set side.
Consequences to follow. So far as prayer of the petitioner for
directing Sqn Ldr H.V. Pandey, respondent no.7 to pay
compensation to the petitioner is concerned, we find that the
petitioner has not been able to make out a case, hence rejected.
16. T.A is disposed of accordingly.”

6
6.1 It is apparent from the findings of the Tribunal that the

respondent No. 7, took the incident personally and forcefully

confiscated the keys of the motorcycle and ordered the appellant to

report to the Guard room. The Tribunal also notices that he was taken

into custody. The Tribunal also recorded that at the instance of

respondent No. 7 the appellant was locked in the Cell. While

deprecating the conduct of respondent No. 7 for adopting such a severe

action over a trivial issue, the Tribunal opined that the officer of a rank

of Sq. Ldr. could have given a proper advice to the appellant, to rectify

his actions, keeping in view the high discipline and dignity of Airforce.

However, the manner in which respondent No. 7 conducted himself was

not appreciated. While deprecating the conduct of respondent No. 7 the

Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the appellant was subjected

to harassment and humiliation giving an impression of vindictiveness

at the instance of the concerned officers. It is for this reason the

Tribunal had no hesitation in setting aside the punishment. The

Tribunal set aside the order of Admonition dt. 18.01.2011. It also set

aside the order dated 28.04.2011, whereby the appellant’s statutory

appeal had been dismissed. Lastly, the Tribunal also set aside the order

dated 06.01.2010, wherein the Air Force Commander had rejected the

appellant’s representation. Thus, the decision and the findings of the

Tribunal have attained finality.

7
6.2 However, for reason that the Tribunal rejected the prayer for

compensation, the present appeal filed by the appellant. We have gone

through the material on record, findings of the Tribunal and noted the

submissions of Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, counsel for the appellant and by

Mr. R. Bala, senior counsel for the respondents.

7. The initial service of the appellant for 14 long years, from its

commencement in 1997 to 2011 was unblemished. This is an admitted

fact. From the unfortunate incident on 17.05.2010, the appellant’s life

was embroiled in defending in the disciplinary proceedings and

contesting the case before the Tribunal. The disproportionate measure

adopted by the respondents, the assurance of expunging the

admonition, withdrawal of the same and then the retrial, leading to

imposition of the punishment caused great amount of distress.

8. The findings of the Tribunal are categorical. It found that the

matter was escalated beyond proportion and there is also an element

of vindictiveness in the action taken against the appellant. More than

anything, the lone battle of the appellant against the unfair and

arbitrary treatment meted out to him, we think is the cause and reason

for the indignation. The institution did not protect him, instead it put

its full force behind respondent No. 7. Fortunately, the Tribunal set

the record straight.

8
9. Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant has submitted the financial loss that has occurred to the

appellant and prayed for appropriate compensation.

10. Small excesses like overtaking the vehicle of one’s senior at a

railway crossing may be an incident of indiscipline in defense services,

but the balance and proportion that needs to be maintained between

such an infraction and its punishment will always be at the core of

good governance. If the balance is not maintained, the distinction

between bad governance, impropriety, unfairness and inhuman

treatment is not much. The Tribunal is right in holding that a small

incident has unnecessarily grown beyond proportion.

11. When the institutions that we build grow beyond proportion,

officers act mechanically and many a times helplessly, ignore the

simple and readily available remedies that are available in our normal

lives. We would have thought that an incident like this would have

ended if a senior officer had at the right time intervened and resolved

the issue by taking into account the emotional aspect of the dispute.

Perhaps a simple apology by respondent No. 7 would have gone a long

way, but that did not happen, and we are now called upon to assess

the economic value of the indignity and proceed to grant monetary

compensation to him. We are aware of how insignificant the monetary

9
value of loss of dignity could be, but legal remedies that they are, enable

us to settle it only as a measure, a token of our concern and in

recognition of a citizen’s identity and dignity.

12. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and

having noted the specific and clear findings of the Tribunal, we direct

the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 1 lakh to the appellant

towards compensation for having suffered an unnecessary and a long-

drawn litigation that was foisted on him. The amount may be paid

within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.

13. The Civil Appeal is disposed of in the above-mentioned terms.

………………………………....J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

………………………………....J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]

NEW DELHI;
October 21, 2024.

10