Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Union of India against the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow, which set aside the discharge of the respondent, Abhishek Pandey, an airman in the Indian Air Force. The respondent was enrolled on 28.09.2004 and had multiple entries of punishment in his conduct sheet. A warning was issued on 18.04.2012, informing him that he was a habitual offender and that any further punishment would lead to discharge under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Air Force Rules, 1969. Despite the warning, the respondent committed an act of indiscipline on 10.06.2012 and was awarded 'Severe Reprimand' on 13.06.2012. A show cause notice was issued on 11.07.2012, to which the respondent submitted an explanation on 05.08.2012, admitting his indiscipline due to bad company and requesting a final chance. The Air Officer-in-Charge approved the discharge. The respondent challenged the discharge before the Tribunal, contending that under the Habitual Offenders Policy dated 16.12.1996, he was entitled to a second warning before discharge. The Tribunal accepted this argument and set aside the discharge, granting 25% back wages. The Supreme Court, in appeal, examined the Policy and held that para 2(b) of the Policy provides for a second warning only when the competent authority considers final orders but decides to give another chance. In this case, the authority decided to discharge without giving another chance, so no second warning was required. The show cause notice was in accordance with the Policy. The Court found no violation of procedure and set aside the Tribunal's judgment, allowing the appeals.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Discharge of Airman - Habitual Offenders Policy - Interpretation of Policy dated 16.12.1996 - The issue was whether a second warning is mandatory before discharge under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of Air Force Rules, 1969. The Supreme Court held that para 2(b) of the Policy provides for a second warning only when the competent authority considers issuance of final orders but decides to give another chance. In the present case, the respondent was given a warning on 18.04.2012, and after further indiscipline, a show cause notice was issued. No second warning was required as the authority decided to discharge without giving another chance. The Tribunal's order setting aside discharge was set aside. (Paras 5-8) B) Service Law - Habitual Offenders - Procedure - Warning and Show Cause Notice - The Policy requires a precautionary warning to a habitual offender, and if the airman does not mend, a show cause notice is issued. A second warning is not mandatory in all cases; it is only required if the competent authority decides to give one more chance. The respondent admitted to indiscipline and sought another chance, but the authority was not bound to give it. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second warning under the Habitual Offenders Policy dated 16.12.1996 is mandatory before discharging an airman, or whether it is required only when the competent authority decides to give another chance.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, and restored the order of discharge of the respondent.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Habitual Offenders Policy
- Requirement of second warning
- Discharge under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of Air Force Rules
- 1969
