Supreme Court modifies dismissal of Sailor for hitting superior officer: Union of India vs. R. Karthik (2020) INSC 21

Date of the Judgment: 21 January 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 21
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a sailor be dismissed from service for hitting a superior officer, especially if the superior officer used abusive language? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case where a sailor was dismissed for hitting his superior, but the Armed Forces Tribunal modified the punishment. This case examines the limits of disciplinary action in the armed forces and the role of the Armed Forces Tribunal in reviewing such decisions. The judgment was authored by Justice Hemant Gupta, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao concurring.

Case Background

The case involves a sailor, R. Karthik, who was serving in the Indian Navy. On May 29, 2013, while onboard INS Gharial, an incident occurred where Lt. Abhishek Vardhan, the superior officer, made a complaint against the sailor. The complaint stated that the sailor was late for his duty at the Aviation Core Team muster, and when questioned, he became aggressive and hit the officer. The sailor was assigned duties in the Pay Office for preparation of pay bills and payment of salaries and maintenance of records. The ship left harbour on 29 May 2013 at about 0830 hrs. The incident happened at 10:00 hrs when the Aviation Core Team was mustered on the helo deck and the sailor was missing.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Following the complaint, an investigation was conducted by Lt. Cdr. Ishwar Chandra. The sailor was brought before the Investigating Officer on May 29, 2013. Three witnesses were examined, but they did not corroborate the incident as alleged. The Investigating Officer referred the case to the Executive Officer, who conducted further proceedings on June 1, 2013, and again examined the same witnesses. The sailor was provided with a Defending Officer, but the witnesses were not cross-examined. The Executive Officer then referred the case to the Commanding Officer. The Commanding Officer recommended 60 days detention and deprivation of First Good Conduct Badge. However, the Chief of Naval Staff ordered the dismissal of the sailor from Naval Service and deprivation of First Good Conduct Badge. The Sailor challenged this order before the Armed Forces Tribunal, which modified the punishment to 75 days detention and maintained the deprivation of First Good Conduct Badge.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 45(a) of the Navy Act, 1957, which deals with offenses related to striking or using violence against a superior officer. The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, particularly Section 15, outlines the powers of the Tribunal to review and modify orders passed by a court martial or disciplinary proceedings. Section 15(6) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, empowers the Tribunal to substitute the findings of the court martial and to interfere if the sentence is found to be excessive, illegal, or unjust.

Section 45(a) of the Navy Act, 1957 states:
“45. Striking or threatening superior officer. – Every person subject to naval law who- (a) strikes or uses or attempts to use violence against his superior officer; or… shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.”

Section 15(6) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 states:
“15 (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, the Tribunal shall have the power to—
(a) substitute for the findings of the court martial, a finding of guilty for any other offence for which the offender could have been lawfully found guilty by the court martial and pass a sentence afresh for the offence specified or involved in such findings under the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) or the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), as the case may be; or
(b) if sentence is found to be excessive, illegal or unjust, the Tribunal may— (i) remit the whole or any part of the sentence, with or without conditions; (ii) mitigate the punishment awarded; (iii) commute such punishment to any lesser punishment or punishments mentioned in the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) and the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), as the case may be;
(c) enhance the sentence awarded by a court martial: Provided that no such sentence shall be enhanced unless the appellant has been given an opportunity of being heard;
(d) release the appellant, if sentenced to imprisonment, on parole with or without conditions;
(e) suspend a sentence of imprisonment;
(f) pass any other order as it may think appropriate.”

Arguments

The appellants (Union of India) argued that the sailor admitted to hitting his superior officer, which constitutes an offense under Section 45(a) of the Navy Act, 1957. They contended that the disciplinary action, including the dismissal, was justified given the severity of the misconduct. The Union of India argued that the Tribunal should not have interfered with the punishment imposed by the Chief of Naval Staff.

The respondent (Sailor) argued that the incident was a result of provocation by the superior officer, who used abusive language. The sailor contended that the use of force was not premeditated but a reflex action. The sailor also pointed out that the superior officer was punished for using abusive language, indicating that the officer was also at fault. The sailor argued that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct, especially considering the circumstances and the fact that the superior officer was also found guilty of misconduct. The sailor relied on the fact that none of the witnesses corroborated the allegation of him hitting the superior officer.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame any specific issues but considered the following:

• Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal was justified in modifying the punishment of dismissal to 75 days detention.
• Whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct of the sailor.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, which empowers the Tribunal to review and modify orders passed by a court martial or disciplinary proceedings. The court also considered Section 45(a) of the Navy Act, 1957, which defines the offense of striking or using violence against a superior officer. The Court did not cite any other cases or books.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The fact that none of the three witnesses corroborated the allegation of the sailor hitting the superior officer.
• The superior officer, Lt. Abhishek Vardhan, was not examined either before the Investigating Officer or the Executive Officer, nor was he made available for cross-examination.
• The superior officer was found guilty of using abusive language against the sailor.
• The Tribunal’s finding that the use of force by the sailor was not premeditated but a consequence of provocation.
• The Court’s view that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct, especially given the circumstances and the superior officer’s misconduct.

The Court emphasized the importance of fairness and proportionality in disciplinary actions within the armed forces. The Court also noted that, while the sailor’s conduct could not be condoned, the punishment should be commensurate with the offense and the circumstances.

The Court held that the Tribunal was within its jurisdiction to modify the punishment and that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the misconduct. The Court observed that the Commanding Officer was aware of the extent of misconduct of the Sailor, but still the Chief of Naval Staff passed an order of dismissal. The Court stated that the Tribunal has the power to substitute the findings in the disciplinary proceedings and to substitute and/or mitigate the punishment awarded. The Court also observed that the superior officer was found guilty of an act of using profane/abusive language under Section 74 of the Act and was given a punishment of one-month loss of seniority. The Court stated that it would be slow in interfering with the substituted punishment, unless the order passed by the Tribunal is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious.

The Supreme Court quoted the Tribunal’s findings:
“It appears that the punishment given to the officer was light in nature and, therefore, given the extenuating circumstances under which the whole episode occurred, the applicant’s plea for mitigation ought to have been considered.”

The Supreme Court also noted:
“Viewed in light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the sentence of dismissal from service awarded to the applicant by the Chief of Naval Staff is disproportionate and excessive.”

The Supreme Court further stated:
“In terms of provisions of the AFT Act, the Tribunal is competent to substitute the findings in the disciplinary proceedings leading to dismissal of the Sailor and to substitute and/or mitigate the punishment awarded.”

Key Takeaways

• The Armed Forces Tribunal has the power to review and modify disciplinary actions taken against members of the armed forces.
• Punishments must be proportionate to the misconduct and consider all the circumstances of the case.
• Provocation and the conduct of superior officers can be considered as mitigating factors in disciplinary proceedings.
• The absence of corroborating evidence and the failure to examine key witnesses can weaken the case against the accused.
• The use of abusive language by a superior officer is a serious matter and can be a factor in determining the appropriate punishment for a subordinate.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the respondent (sailor) be reinstated within two months but shall not be entitled to any back wages from the date of dismissal till reinstatement. However, he shall be entitled to computation of all consequential benefits, including pay fixation.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the Armed Forces Tribunal has the power to review and modify disciplinary actions taken against members of the armed forces, and that punishments must be proportionate to the misconduct and consider all the circumstances of the case. This case reinforces the principle that disciplinary actions must be fair and just, taking into account all relevant factors, including the conduct of superior officers and the circumstances surrounding the incident. This case did not change any previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision to modify the dismissal of the sailor to 75 days detention, emphasizing the need for proportionate punishment and considering the circumstances of the case. The Court’s decision highlights the importance of fairness and justice in disciplinary proceedings within the armed forces. The sailor was ordered to be reinstated with consequential benefits but without back wages.

Category

Parent Category: Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007
Child Category: Section 15, Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007
Parent Category: Navy Act, 1957
Child Category: Section 45, Navy Act, 1957
Parent Category: Military Law
Child Category: Disciplinary Proceedings
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Reinstatement
Parent Category: Supreme Court Judgments
Child Category: Armed Forces Tribunal

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the case?
A: The main issue was whether the dismissal of a sailor for hitting a superior officer was justified, especially considering the superior officer’s use of abusive language and the lack of corroborating evidence.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision to modify the dismissal to 75 days detention, emphasizing the need for proportionate punishment and considering all the circumstances of the case.

Q: What is the significance of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 in this case?
A: Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, empowers the Tribunal to review and modify orders passed by a court martial or disciplinary proceedings, which was crucial in this case.

Q: What does this case mean for disciplinary actions in the armed forces?
A: This case emphasizes that disciplinary actions must be fair, just, and proportionate, considering all relevant factors, including the conduct of superior officers and the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Q: What is the practical implication of this judgment?
A: The practical implication is that members of the armed forces can seek recourse through the Armed Forces Tribunal if they believe that disciplinary actions taken against them are excessive or unjust. The judgement also serves as a reminder to the armed forces to be fair in their disciplinary actions.