CASE NAME: S.P PANDEY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
CASE NO.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6186 of 2018
DATED: October 21, 2024.
QUORUM: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
Facts of the Case
The appellant, S.P. Pandey, enlisted in the Indian Air Force in 1997 as an Airman and was posted at 333 TRU C/o 5 FBSU. On May 17, 2010, while returning home from duty, he had to stop at a railway crossing in a civil area which was closed. Instead of waiting in line, he overtook other vehicles and parked his motorcycle at the front which caught the attention of Squadron Leader (Sqn Ldr) H.V. Pandey. The officer confiscated the appellant’s motorcycle keys, reprimanding him for violating discipline, and ordered him to be detained. He was then charged for indiscipline and insubordinate language. With assurances that it would be removed from his record, the original order of admonition was subsequently revoked. The appellant, however, challenged the admonition order before the Armed Forces Tribunal when a second trial was held. Since the response to the minor infraction was disproportionate and characterised by vindictiveness, the Tribunal overturned the admonition.
Issues of the Case
- Whether the disciplinary measures taken against S.P. Pandey were proportionate or excessive.
- To what extent did the subsequent retrial violate principles of natural justice.
- Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation for wrongful disciplinary actions.
Legal Provisions
- Air Force Act, 1950: This Act governs the conduct and discipline of personnel in the Indian Air Force. Specific reference was made to Section 83, which pertains to the requirement of obtaining sanction for certain disciplinary actions.
- Regulations of the Air Force: The judgment specifically referenced Para 565 of these regulations, which outlines the responsibilities and authority of officers in maintaining discipline within the Air Force.
- Rule 33(1) of the Regulations: This rule was cited in relation to the expungement of punishment entries from service records, indicating that the appellant’s initial admonition was to be cancelled under this provision.
Contentions by the Appellant
The appellant, S.P. Pandey, argued that the incident leading to disciplinary action was trivial. He contended that overtaking vehicles at a railway crossing was a common practice and should not have warranted such severe consequences. Pandey claimed that the punishment he received was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
He also highlighted that his initial admonition was later expunged, suggesting that even the authorities recognized the inappropriateness of the punishment. The appellant cited procedural errors in the way his case was handled, pointing out that he was given a retrial without any explanation or due process after being promised that the admonition would be expunged. He argued that this retrial was not only unnecessary but also shows the vindictiveness from his superiors.
Pandey asserted that he faced harassment and humiliation due to the actions of Squadron Leader H.V. Pandey, who he claimed took personal offense at his actions. He argued that this personal vendetta resulted in an escalation of disciplinary measures beyond what was warranted. Finally, the appellant sought compensation for the distress and financial loss incurred due to the prolonged disciplinary proceedings and the impact on his service record.
Contentions by the Respondent
The respondents argued that the disciplinary actions taken against the appellant were justified due to his violation of Air Force discipline. They contended that Pandey’s decision to overtake other vehicles at a railway crossing and his use of insubordinate language towards a superior officer warranted disciplinary measures. The respondents further stated that all procedures outlined in the Air Force Act, 1950, and relevant regulations were adhered to during the disciplinary process.
They asserted that the initial admonition was valid and that the subsequent retrial was necessary due to a lack of proper sanction under Section 83 of the Air Force Act. The respondents emphasized that an investigation into the appellant’s complaints against Squadron Leader H.V. Pandey found those allegations to be false. They argued that this investigation validated the actions taken by the officer in question and demonstrated that there was no vindictiveness involved. The respondents pointed out that the punishment of admonition was not severe compared to potential sanctions for more serious offenses. They argued that it was a minor disciplinary action intended to correct behavior rather than to punish harshly.
The respondents highlighted that the appellant’s behavior, particularly in a public setting, could undermine military discipline and order. They pointed out that officers are required to uphold certain levels of behavior and Pandey’s actions were contrary to those expectations. The respondents argued against the appellant’s request for compensation, claiming that he did not provide any evidence that would show any loss or injury suffered by him as a result of the disciplinary measures imposed on him.
Judgement
The final decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Pandey vs. Union of India & Ors. was to uphold the findings of the Armed Forces Tribunal, which had previously set aside the admonition imposed on the appellant. The Court ruled that the disciplinary actions taken against Pandey were disproportionate and highlighted the vindictiveness in how the situation was handled by his superiors.
In addition, the Supreme Court granted compensation to the appellant in the amount of Rs. 1 lakh for the distress and prolonged litigation he experienced as a result of these disciplinary actions. The Court emphasized that while monetary compensation cannot fully address the loss of dignity suffered by the appellant, it serves as a token recognition of his identity and dignity. The compensation was ordered to be paid within 30 days from the date of the judgment, which was delivered on October 21, 2024.
Analysis
In the case of S.P. Pandey vs. Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court examined the events leading to the disciplinary actions against the appellant, S.P. Pandey, an Airman in the Indian Air Force. The incident, which involved overtaking vehicles at a railway crossing, was deemed trivial and not warranting severe punitive measures such as admonition.
The Court noted an element of vindictiveness in the actions of Squadron Leader H.V. Pandey, who escalated the situation unnecessarily. The Tribunal’s findings indicated that the officer took personal offense and acted harshly, which contributed to the perception of unfair treatment towards the appellant. The Court emphasized that Pandey had received written assurances from his superiors that the initial admonition would be expunged from his record.
However, instead of honoring this commitment, a retrial was conducted, leading to further punitive measures against him. The Court considered Pandey’s 14-year service with a clean record and recognized the emotional distress caused by prolonged litigation and punitive actions. It highlighted that the institution failed to protect him and instead supported the actions taken against him.
Conclusion
The judgment reflects a balanced approach to addressing grievances within military frameworks while emphasizing accountability among officers. It serves as a reminder of the necessity for military authorities to exercise discretion judiciously and maintain open lines of communication to resolve conflicts amicably before resorting to punitive measures. The awarded compensation acknowledges not only the legal but also the emotional toll inflicted upon personnel due to mishandled disciplinary processes.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY- TEJASRI RAO
