Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In this case of Union of India & Ors. Versus 794898 T. Ex. Corporal Abhishek Pandey, an appeal was filed in the Supreme court against the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow, by which the order of discharge of the Respondent dated 17.01.2013 was set aside. The Tribunal directed the payment of back wages to the extent of 25 per cent. In this case a warning was issued to the Respondent. By that time, there were seven entries of punishment (3 Red Ink and 4 Black Ink) in the Conduct Sheet of the Respondent. The Respondent was informed by the said letter dated 18.04.2012 that he was already in the category of habitual offender. In accordance with the Habitual Offenders Policy, the habitual offenders can be considered for discharge from service under Rule 15 (2) (g) (ii)/ Rule 15(2)(k) read in conjunction with Rule 15(2) of the Air Force Rules, 1969 , under the Clause “His Service No Longer Required Unsuitable for Retention in the Air Force”. The Respondent was cautioned and counselled to mend himself and desist from acts of indiscipline. He was also warned that any addition of another punishment entry would render him liable for discharge from service under Rule 15 (2) (g)(ii)/ Rule 15(2) (k) read in conjunction with Rule 15(2) of the Rules. A notice was issued to the Respondent , directing him to show cause as to why he should not be discharged from service under Rule 15 (2) (g) (ii) of the Rules.
There was a reference to the warning letter dated in the show cause notice. Even after the issuance of the warning letter , the Respondent indulged in acts of indiscipline on and was awarded ‘Severe Reprimand’ on by his Commanding Officer. As the Respondent was not showing any improvement, he was found to be a poor Airman material and not amenable to service discipline. The Respondent submitted his explanation, He requested for a final chance to improve. After considering the explanation submitted by the Respondent, the Air Officer-in-Charge approved the discharge of the Respondent from service under Rule 15 (2) (g) (ii) of the Rules as he was found unsuitable for the Indian Air Force. The Respondent challenged his discharge before the Tribunal by filing Original Application No.125 of 2013. He relied upon a Policy dated 16.12.1996 governing the habitual offenders/ potential habitual offenders. He contended before the Tribunal that he was entitled for a second warning before an order of discharge could have been passed against him in accordance with the Policy. The Tribunal accepted the submission made by the Respondent and allowed the application. The order of discharge was set aside. The Respondent was held to be entitled to all consequential benefits, including back wages which were restricted to 25 per cent. The Review Application filed by the Appellant was rejected by the Tribunal. Thereby the appellant challenged the order of court in supreme court, the supreme court after hearing the case held “Admittedly, there was a delay in issuance of the warning letter.
Ultimately, the warning letter was issued on 18.04.2012. The Respondent did not mend himself for which reason a show cause notice was issued to him. Even in the explanation to the show cause notice, the Respondent did not dispute the allegations of misconduct made against him. He, in fact, admitted to having indulged in acts of indiscipline and sought for another opportunity to correct himself. The show cause notice issued to the Respondent is in accordance with the Habitual Offenders Policy. A second warning letter is not required when it is decided to pass a final order without giving another chance. There is no violation of the procedure prescribed by the Policy dated 16.12.1996. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. Accordingly, the Appeals are allowed.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824