The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, an airman in the Indian Air Force. Pandey challenged the disciplinary actions taken against him, including an admonition and wrongful trial based on an incident involving overtaking vehicles at a railway crossing. The Armed Forces Tribunal had quashed the admonition, finding it to be disproportionate and motivated by vindictiveness. The Supreme Court, while upholding the Tribunal’s findings, awarded Pandey compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for the emotional distress and prolonged litigation caused by the wrongful disciplinary proceedings.

1. Incident at Railway Crossing:

• S.P. Pandey was enrolled in the Indian Air Force as a radar fitter and posted in 333 TRU C/o 5 FBSU.
• On 17.05.2010, while returning from duty, Pandey overtook vehicles waiting at a closed railway crossing.
• Squadron Leader (Sqn Ldr), also at the crossing, confiscated Pandey’s motorcycle keys and ordered him to the Guard Room, leading to his detention.

2. Charges and Initial Punishment:

• Pandey faced charges of violating discipline and using insubordinate language (“yah kaya gundagardi hai”) towards a superior officer.
• A Closed Arrest and charge sheet were issued, and on 18.05.2010, Pandey was admonished.

3. Attempt to Expunge Punishment:

• Despite orders to expunge the punishment and quash the charge sheet under Section 83 of the Air Force Act, a second trial was initiated by higher authorities on 30.06.2010, leading to further disciplinary action on 18.01.2011.

4. Appeal to Armed Forces Tribunal:

• Pandey appealed to the Armed Forces Tribunal, which set aside the second admonition in 2011. The Tribunal ruled that the disciplinary action was vindictive and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

5. Supreme Court Judgment:

• In 2024, the Supreme Court confirmed the Tribunal’s findings, ruling that the officer’s conduct escalated a trivial incident. The Court awarded Rs. 1 lakh in compensation for the undue hardship caused by the prolonged legal battles and emotional distress.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Air Force Act, 1950, Section 83: Discusses the requirement for proper sanction for charges and punishments within the armed forces.
• Regulation 33(1): Allows for the expunging of disciplinary records in specific circumstances, which was initially promised to Pandey but not upheld.

Ratio Decidendi:

The ratio of this case rests on the principle that disciplinary actions within the armed forces must be proportionate to the infraction and not motivated by personal grievances or vindictiveness. The Court emphasized that while discipline is crucial in defense services, empathy and restraint should guide the actions of senior officers, particularly in minor infractions. The mishandling of Pandey’s case and the undue continuation of disciplinary action led to the Court awarding compensation for the emotional and reputational harm suffered.

Subjects:

Military Discipline, Armed Forces Tribunal, Air Force Act

Vindictive Discipline, Supreme Court, Compensation, Armed Forces, Military Law