{"file_name": "2024_10_2314_2322_EN.pdf", "text": "[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2314 : 2024 INSC 804\n\nS.P. Pandey \nv. \nUnion of India & Ors.\n\n(Civil Appeal No. 6186 of 2018)\n\n21 October 2024\n\n[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]\n\nIssue for Consideration\n\nAppellant-Airman, was charged for “Violation of good order and Air \nForce Discipline” and “Use of insubordinate language to a superior \nofficer”. An order of admonition was passed on 18.05.2010 against \nthe appellant by the Officiating Commanding Officer. Armed Force \nTribunal set aside the punishment of ‘Admonition’ passed against \nthe appellant vide order dated 18.01.2011. Not satisfied with the \norder of Armed Forces Tribunal, appellant demanded compensation \nby filing the present appeals.\n\nHeadnotes†\n\nAir  Force  Act,  1950  -  Regulations  for  the  Air  Force  – \nMisconduct – Measure of determining adequate punishment \nfor  infractions  –  Balance  and  proportion  that  needs  to  be \nmaintained  between  an  infraction  and  its  punishment  will \nalways  be  at  the  core  of  good  governance  –  Compensation \nfor suffering unnecessary and long-drawn litigation:\n\nHeld: When the institutions that we build grow beyond proportion, \nofficers act mechanically and many a times helplessly, ignore the \nsimple  and  readily  available  remedies  that  are  available  in  our \nnormal  lives  – An  incident  like  this  would  have  ended  if  a  senior \nofficer had at the right time intervened and resolved the issue by \ntaking into account the emotional aspect of the dispute – Perhaps \na  simple  apology  by  respondent  No.  7  would  have  gone  a  long \nway, but that did not happen – One is aware of how insignificant \nthe monetary value of loss of dignity could be, but legal remedies \nthat  they  are,  enable  this  Court  to  settle  it  only  as  a  measure,  a \ntoken of concern and in recognition of a citizen’s identity and dignity \n– Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and \nhaving  noted  the  specific  and  clear  findings  of  the  Tribunal,  the \nrespondents  are  directed  to  pay  an  amount  of  Rs.  1  lakh  to  the \n\n* Author\n\n\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n2315\n\nappellant towards compensation for having suffered an unnecessary \nand a long-drawn litigation that was foisted on him. [Paras 11 and 12]\n\nAir Force Act, 1950, Regulations of the Air Force.\n\nList of Acts\n\nList of Keywords\n\nAdmonition, Good Governance, Misconduct, Balance, Proportion, \nCompensation.\n\nCase Arising From\n\nCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6186 of 2018\n\nFrom the Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2017 in TA No. 13 of \n2017  and  Order  dated  01.12.2017  in  M.A.  Nos.  2140  and  2141 \nof  2017  in  T.A.  No.  13  of  2017  of  the Armed  Forces  Tribunal, \nRegional Bench, Lucknow\n\nAppearances for Parties\n\nMs.  Vanshaja  Shukla,  Ansh  Narayan  Tripathi,  Nitin  Bhardwaj, \nAdvs. for the Appellant.\n\nR  Bala,  Sr. Adv.,  Mukesh  Kumar  Maroria,  Rohit  Pandey,  Ishaan \nSharma,  Prahlad  Singh, Annirudh  Sharma  Ii,  Mrigank  Pathak, \nAdvs. for the Respondents.\n\nJudgment / Order of the Supreme Court\n\nOrder\n\nPamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.\n\n1.  The  appellant  is  not  satisfied  that  the  Armed  Forces  Tribunal, \nJaipur has allowed his OA and quashed the order of Admonition \npassed against him on 18.01.2011. He demands compensation for \nthe  wrongful  order  by  filing  the  present  appeal.  We  agreed  with \nhim  and  for  reasons  to  follow,  allowed  the  appeal  and  granted \ncompensation.\n\n2.  Facts of the case are that the appellant was enrolled in the Indian Air \nForce in 1997 as Airman in the trade of Radar Fitter. At the relevant \n\nS.P. Pandey v. Union of India & Ors.\f2316 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\ntime, he was posted on the strength of 333 TRU C/o 5 FBSU, Air \nForce where he commenced work from 16.11.2009. \n\n2.1  The  incident  in  question  occurred  on  17.05.2010,  at  about \n14.20 hrs when he was returning home from duty. On his way \nback, he had to stop at a railway crossing in a civil area which \nwas closed. The gate was closed due to transit of a train. The \nallegation against the appellant is that, instead of waiting behind \nthe vehicles already in line at the railway crossing, he overtook \nall the vehicles, went straight ahead and parked his motorcycle \nin front of the railway gate.\n\n2.2  Respondent No. 7 a Sqn Ldr (Squadron Leader) who was also \nwaiting for the railway barrier to open, approached the appellant \nand in ‘exercise of the responsibility’ conferred on officers of the \nAir Forces under Para 565 of the Regulations questioned the \nappellant for overtaking all vehicles, pulled out the motorcycle \nkeys and directed the him to park his motorcycle in Guard Room. \nThe respondent no. 7 handed over the keys to Duty NCO and \ninformed the appellant that his motorcycle is being confiscated \nfor not following good order and Air Force discipline. This led \nto an argument between the appellant and respondent No. 7 \nwherein  the  appellant  allegedly  used  insubordinate  language \n(yah  kaya  gundagardi  hai)  contrary  to  Air  Force  discipline. \nRespondent No. 7 ordered closed arrest of the appellant and \ninformed the Commanding Officer and the Adjutant of the Unit. \nCharge sheet for two offences, i.e. “Violation of good order and \nAir Force Discipline” and “Use of insubordinate language to a \nsuperior officer” was drawn against the appellant. \n\n2.3  The  charge  was  tried  by  Officiating  Commanding  Officer  on \n18.05.2010  and  an  order  of Admonition  was  passed  on  the \nsame day. However, respondent No. 4 the Station Cdr. 5 FBSU \nsought  sanction  for  expunction  of  punishment  entry  from  the \ndocuments of the appellant and to proceed with de novo trial of \nthe appellant for the above alleged misconduct on the technical \nground  that  sanction  under  Section  83  of  the Air  Force Act, \n1950 was not obtained. \n\n2.4  The appellant preferred a statutory complaint dated 24.05.2010. \nThis  led  to  a  formal  investigation  as  ordered  by  respondent \nNo. 4 to bring out the fact of allegation made by the appellant \nagainst respondent No. 7 and it was reported that the allegations \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n2317\n\nmade  by  the  appellant  were  false.  However,  by  letter  dated \n23.06.2010 the appellant was assured that punishment dated \n18.05.2010 would be cancelled and the Admonition entry will \nbe expunged from the record. Relevant portion of letter of Sqn \nLdr. Fit Cdr. HRM Ft dated 23.06.2010 is as under:-\n\n“REPLY TO ROG APPLICATION\n\n1.  Reference  is  made  to  your  application  dated  24 \nMay 10. \n\n2. You, are interviewed by the Station Commander \nin  two  sessions  on  18  and  21  June  10  and  all  the \nissues brought out by you were addressed. Formal \nInvestigation was ordered to bring out the fact of the \nallegations made by you against Sqn Ldr HV Pandey \n(27441) F (P). From the FI, it is clear that allegation \nmade against Sqn officer were false. You were told \nby the Stn Cdr that punishment given to you dated \n18  May  10  by  CO  333  TRU  will  be  cancelled  and \nentry will be expunged from the documents. \n\n3. Application  being  devoid  of  merit,  is  disposed, \nherewith. \n\n4. You are requested to give written acknowledgement \nregarding receipt of disposal of your application.”\n\n(emphasis supplied)\n\n3.  Consequently, by order dated 24.06.2010 the appellant was intimated \nthat charges raised against him have been expunged under 33(1) \nof the Regulation and punishment entry has been deleted from his \nservice documents. The order reads as follows:\n\n“Tel: AFNET/7742\n\n333 TRU/C 951/2/P1\n742490-K Cpl SP Pandey Rad Fit\n\n333TRU, AF \nC/0 56 APO \nPIN-937333\n\n24 Jun 10\n\nEXPUNGEMENTT OF PUNISHMENT\n\n1.  Reference is made to 5 FBSU, AF letter No 5FBSU/C \n\n102/1/P1 dated 23 Jun 10.\n\nS.P. Pandey v. Union of India & Ors.\f2318 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n2. \n\nIt is intimated that the punishment awarded to you by \nthe undersigned on 18 May 10 in connection with the \ncharge sheet raised by Sqn Ldr HV Pandey ((27441) \nF (P) of 4 Sqn has been expunged under rule 33(1) \nof the Regulation of the Air Force. The punishment \nentry  has  been  deleted  from  the  conduct  sheet  of \nyour service documents. \n\n3.  This is for your information.\n\nSd/- zz  \n(R Putatunda)  \nFit Lt  \nCO” \n\n4.  This  litigation  would  not  have  survived  if  the  above  referred  letter \nhad been given effect to. That didn’t happen. Wg Cdr V.K. Mohan \nproceeded de novo against the same charge and ordered for recording \nof  Summary  of  Evidence  on  30.06.2010.  The  appellant  preferred \na  representation  to  the Air  Officer  Commanding-in-Chief  with  the \nprayer  to  stay  operation  of  order  dated  30.06.2010  for  recording \nof  Summary  of  Evidence  and  prohibit  the  Commanding  Officer  to \nconduct the second trial for the same charges. The representation \npreferred  by  the  appellant  was  rejected  by  Chief  of Air  Staff  vide \norder dated 06.01.2011. \n\n5. \n\nIn the circumstances, a second Admonition order was passed against \nthe appellant dated 18.01.2011. He appealed to respondent No. 2 \nand  even  this  was  rejected  on  28.04.2011.  The  representation  to \nthe Chief of Air Staff for reconsideration of order dated 06.01.2011 \nwhich was also rejected on the ground of it being repetitive in nature.\n\n6.  Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the Armed Forces Tribunal \nby filing an Original Application. After hearing the appellant and the \nrespondents  and  having  gone  through  the  materials  and  records \nbefore it, the Tribunal set aside the punishment of ‘Admonition’ passed \nagainst the appellant vide order dated 18.01.2011. It is important to \nextract the conclusion of the Tribunal, the relevant part of the order \nis extracted as follows:\n\n“11.  Before  proceeding  further  we  may  recall  that  the \npunishment  awarded  to  the  petitioner  is  of  ‘admonition’. \nLearned  counsel  for  the  respondents  submitted  that  on \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n2319\n\ndate,  the  petitioner  has  retired  from  service  and  any \nfurther indulgence would gain no fruitful result even if the \npunishment of ‘admonition’ is set aside and now the issue \ninvolved remains only of academic interest. \n\n12. Be that as it may, we feel it worth mentioning that from \nthe  sequence  of  events  on  record,  it  is  evident  that  the \nentire episode got triggered by the fact that in a civil area, \ni.e.  at  a  railway  crossing,  the  petitioner,  like  many  other \nservice/civil motor cyclists had overtaken the long queue \nof  cars  to  position  themselves  in  front  row,  close  to  the \nrailway crossing barrier. No doubt, it is expected of every \nAir Warrior/Airman to uphold highest degree of discipline \ninside and outside his service place. But at the same time, \nfrom the events noticed hereinbefore, it is borne out that \nthe petitioner had overtaken the parked four wheelers and \nmotorcycles  on  a  public  road  near  the  railway  crossing \nbarrier  and  had  parked  his  motorcycle  in  the  front  row, \nmay be to avoid rush of traffic when the barrier opened. It \nappears that this gesture of the petitioner was taken as an \naffront by the Sqn Ldr H.V. Pandey and he approached the \npetitioner from the rear and forcefully took away the keys of \nthe motorcycle; confiscated the motorcycle on the ground \nthat  the  petitioner  violated  traffic  rules  and  general  road \ndiscipline, ordered the petitioner to report to the guard room \nand took the applicant in custody. It was on his orders the \npetitioner was locked in a cell. The strict action taken by \nSqn Ldr H.V. Pandey in a public place over a trivial issue \ncannot  at  the  same  time  be  appreciated.  Even  if  in  the \nopinion of Sqn Ldr H.V. Pandey the petitioner had committed \nsome wrong in public place, the circumstances of the case \nrequired him to have advised the petitioner to mend his ways \nin future keeping in view the high discipline and dignity of \nthe Air Force. But the manner in which the whole incident \nwas highlighted in full public gaze, and consequent action \ntaken  by  him,  permitting  a  trivial  happening  to  escalate \nout of proportion, cannot be appreciated. An offence is an \nofficer  and  his  behaviour  should  also  be  officer-like.  His \nbehaviour  has  to  set  up  an  example. The  incident  could \nhave been handled by the officer more appropriately. \n\nS.P. Pandey v. Union of India & Ors.\f2320 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n13. From the record, it is revealed that the petitioner was \nassured in writing on two occasions that the punishment \nentry will be expunged. Despite that, the respondent chose \nto proceed afresh. It gives an indication of vindictiveness \nand perhaps it was instigated by the officer. \n\n14.  For  reasons  mentioned  hereinabove,  we  are  of  the \nconsidered  view  that  the  Summary  of  Evidence  and \npunishment  of  ‘admonition”  awarded  to  the  applicant \ndeserve to be set aside.\n\n15.  Accordingly,  punishment  of  ‘admonition’  dated \n18.01.2011 awarded to the petitioner is set aside. Impugned \norder dated 28.04.2011 (Annexure-27 to the petition), and \norder dated 06.01.2010 (Annexure-25 to the petition) are \nalso set side. Consequences to follow. So far as prayer of \nthe petitioner for directing Sqn Ldr H.V. Pandey, respondent \nno.7 to pay compensation to the petitioner is concerned, \nwe find that the petitioner has not been able to make out \na case, hence rejected.\n\n16. T.A is disposed of accordingly.” \n\n6.1 \n\nIt is apparent from the findings of the Tribunal that the respondent \nNo.  7,  took  the  incident  personally  and  forcefully  confiscated \nthe keys of the motorcycle and ordered the appellant to report \nto  the  Guard  room.  The  Tribunal  also  notices  that  he  was \ntaken  into  custody.  The  Tribunal  also  recorded  that  at  the \ninstance of respondent No. 7 the appellant was locked in the \nCell.  While  deprecating  the  conduct  of  respondent  No.  7  for \nadopting such a severe action over a trivial issue, the Tribunal \nopined that the officer of a rank of Sq. Ldr. could have given a \nproper  advice  to  the  appellant,  to  rectify  his  actions,  keeping \nin view the high discipline and dignity of Airforce. However, the \nmanner in which respondent No. 7 conducted himself was not \nappreciated. While deprecating the conduct of respondent No. 7 \nthe Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the appellant was \nsubjected to harassment and humiliation giving an impression \nof vindictiveness at the instance of the concerned officers. It is \nfor this reason the Tribunal had no hesitation in setting aside \nthe punishment. The Tribunal set aside the order of Admonition \ndt.  18.01.2011.  It  also  set  aside  the  order  dated  28.04.2011, \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n2321\n\nwhereby the appellant’s statutory appeal had been dismissed. \nLastly, the Tribunal also set aside the order dated 06.01.2010, \nwherein the Air Force Commander had rejected the appellant’s \nrepresentation. Thus, the decision and the findings of the Tribunal \nhave attained finality.\n\n6.2  However,  for  reason  that  the  Tribunal  rejected  the  prayer  for \ncompensation,  the  present  appeal  filed  by  the  appellant.  We \nhave  gone  through  the  material  on  record,  findings  of  the \nTribunal  and  noted  the  submissions  of  Ms.  Vanshaja  Shukla, \ncounsel  for  the  appellant  and  by  Mr.  R.  Bala,  senior  counsel \nfor the respondents. \n\n7.  The  initial  service  of  the  appellant  for  14  long  years,  from  its \ncommencement in 1997 to 2011 was unblemished. This is an admitted \nfact.  From  the  unfortunate  incident  on  17.05.2010,  the  appellant’s \nlife  was  embroiled  in  defending  in  the  disciplinary  proceedings \nand  contesting  the  case  before  the  Tribunal.  The  disproportionate \nmeasure adopted by the respondents, the assurance of expunging \nthe admonition, withdrawal of the same and then the retrial, leading \nto imposition of the punishment caused great amount of distress.\n\n8.  The findings of the Tribunal are categorical. It found that the matter \nwas  escalated  beyond  proportion  and  there  is  also  an  element  of \nvindictiveness in the action taken against the appellant. More than \nanything,  the  lone  battle  of  the  appellant  against  the  unfair  and \narbitrary treatment meted out to him, we think is the cause and reason \nfor the indignation. The institution did not protect him, instead it put \nits full force behind respondent No. 7. Fortunately, the Tribunal set \nthe record straight.\n\n9.  Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant \nhas submitted the financial loss that has occurred to the appellant \nand prayed for appropriate compensation. \n\n10.  Small excesses like overtaking the vehicle of one’s senior at a railway \ncrossing may be an incident of indiscipline in defense services, but \nthe  balance  and  proportion  that  needs  to  be  maintained  between \nsuch an infraction and its punishment will always be at the core of \ngood  governance.  If  the  balance  is  not  maintained,  the  distinction \nbetween  bad  governance,  impropriety,  unfairness  and  inhuman \ntreatment is not much. The Tribunal is right in holding that a small \nincident has unnecessarily grown beyond proportion. \n\nS.P. Pandey v. Union of India & Ors.\f2322 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n11.  When the institutions that we build grow beyond proportion, officers \nact mechanically and many a times helplessly, ignore the simple and \nreadily available remedies that are available in our normal lives. We \nwould  have  thought  that  an  incident  like  this  would  have  ended  if \na  senior  officer  had  at  the  right  time  intervened  and  resolved  the \nissue  by  taking  into  account  the  emotional  aspect  of  the  dispute. \nPerhaps  a  simple  apology  by  respondent  No.  7  would  have  gone \na  long  way,  but  that  did  not  happen,  and  we  are  now  called  upon \nto assess the economic value of the indignity and proceed to grant \nmonetary compensation to him. We are aware of how insignificant \nthe  monetary value of loss of dignity could  be, but  legal remedies \nthat  they  are,  enable  us  to  settle  it  only  as  a  measure,  a  token  of \nour concern and in recognition of a citizen’s identity and dignity.\n\n12.  Having  considered  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  and \nhaving noted the specific and clear findings of the Tribunal, we direct \nthe  respondents  to  pay  an  amount  of  Rs.  1  lakh  to  the  appellant \ntowards  compensation  for  having  suffered  an  unnecessary  and  a \nlong-drawn  litigation  that  was  foisted  on  him. The  amount  may  be \npaid within a period of 30 days from the date of this order. \n\n13.  The Civil Appeal is disposed of in the above-mentioned terms.\n\nResult of the case: Appeal disposed of.\n\n†Headnotes prepared by:  Himanshu Rai, Hony. Associate Editor \n\n(Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.)\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f"}