Supreme Court Upholds Cashiering for Misconduct, Clarifies Pension Forfeiture: Union of India vs. Lt. Col. S.S. Bedi (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 29 July 2020

Citation: 2020 INSC 565

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Hemant Gupta, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Can a medical professional’s misconduct during a patient examination lead to cashiering from service, and does this automatically forfeit pensionary benefits? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving a former Lieutenant Colonel of the Indian Army Medical Corps. The Court examined the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal to reduce the punishment of cashiering to a fine, and clarified the relationship between cashiering and pension forfeiture. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench consisting of Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta, and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, with the opinion authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao.

Case Background

The case involves Lt. Col. S.S. Bedi, who was commissioned in the Indian Army Medical Corps on 24 July 1966. He was posted at Base Hospital Lucknow as a Medical Specialist on 3 April 1984. On 15 May 1986, two women patients filed a complaint alleging that Lt. Col. Bedi had misbehaved with them during medical checkups by inappropriately touching their private parts. Following this complaint, the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief (GOC-in-C) directed the attachment of Lt. Col. Bedi for recording summary evidence. This process was completed on 30 September 1986. However, due to procedural irregularities, the summary of evidence was cancelled on 1 October 1986, and a fresh recording of summary evidence was ordered.

Based on the new summary of evidence, the convening authority ordered the trial of Lt. Col. Bedi by a General Court Martial. On 29 November 1986, a charge sheet was filed against him for committing a civil offense, specifically using criminal force on the two women with the intent to outrage their modesty, which is an offense under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The General Court Martial found Lt. Col. Bedi guilty on 9 December 1986 and sentenced him to be cashiered from service on 14 January 1987.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Lt. Col. Bedi’s petition under Section 164(2) of the Army Act, 1950, was rejected on 30 May 1988. He then challenged the conviction and sentence of the General Court Martial before the Delhi High Court in 2010. The Delhi High Court transferred the Writ Petition to the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi. The Tribunal upheld the conviction of Lt. Col. Bedi but reduced the punishment of cashiering to a fine of Rs. 50,000. Both Lt. Col. Bedi and the Union of India filed appeals against this judgment. Lt. Col. Bedi challenged the conviction and the imposition of the fine, while the Union of India challenged the alteration of the sentence.

Legal Framework

The legal framework relevant to this case includes:

• Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with the offense of using criminal force on a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty.

“Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

• Section 164(2) of the Army Act, 1950: This section pertains to the procedure for appeals against the decisions of the Court Martial.
• Section 71 of the Army Act, 1950: This section outlines the punishments that can be awarded by a Court Martial. It includes:
  • Section 71(d): Cashiering, which is the removal of an officer from service.
  • Section 71(h): Forfeiture of service for the purpose of increased pay, pension, or other prescribed purposes.
  • Section 71(k): Forfeiture of all arrears of pay and allowances and other public money due at the time of cashiering or dismissal.
• Regulation 16(a) of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961: This regulation states that the pension of an officer cashiered from service may be forfeited at the discretion of the President.

These provisions are interpreted within the constitutional framework of India, ensuring that military personnel are subject to both military law and the principles of natural justice.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellant (Lt. Col. S.S. Bedi):

• The conviction is unsustainable due to improper appreciation of evidence by the General Court Martial and the Tribunal.
• The evidence of Mrs. Gita Ray, which was favorable to the Appellant, was not considered.
• The testimony of Lt. Col. R. Sharma also supported the Appellant’s case.
• Physical examination of the complainants was necessary for their ailments (bronchial asthma and duodenal ulcer).
• The Appellant is 78 years old, and the fine of Rs. 50,000 has already been deposited.
• Even if the cashiering penalty is upheld, forfeiture of pensionary benefits is not automatic without an order under Section 71(h) of the Army Act, 1950.
• Relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Brig. P.K. Dutta (Retd.) [1995 Supp. (2) SCC 29] and Union of India v. P.D. Yadav [(2002) 1 SCC 405] to argue that cashiering does not automatically lead to forfeiture of pension.

Arguments of the Respondent (Union of India):

• There is sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the Appellant, which has been properly appreciated by the General Court Martial and the Tribunal.
• The conversion of the cashiering penalty to a fine by the Tribunal was unwarranted.
• The Appellant misbehaved with two patients and expert evidence showed that touching their private parts was unnecessary.
• The expert evidence of Lt. Col. R. Sharma indicated that while some touching of the chest and stomach was necessary, the squeezing of breasts and nipples was not.

The innovativeness of the argument of the Appellant was that even if the cashiering penalty is upheld, forfeiture of pensionary benefits is not automatic without an order under Section 71(h) of the Army Act, 1950.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issues addressed were:

1. Whether the conviction of the Appellant was sustainable based on the evidence on record.
2. Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal was correct in converting the sentence of cashiering to a fine of Rs. 50,000.
3. Whether the punishment of cashiering from service automatically leads to forfeiture of pensionary benefits.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Union of India v. Brig. P.K. Dutta (Retd.) [1995 Supp. (2) SCC 29]*: The Court followed this judgment to reiterate that cashiering does not automatically result in forfeiture of retiral benefits.
• Union of India v. P.D. Yadav [(2002) 1 SCC 405]*: The Court relied on this case to affirm that punishment under Section 71 of the Army Act, 1950 and an order under Regulation 16(a) of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961, are different and do not amount to double jeopardy.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The Court found the evidence of the complainants credible and consistent, indicating that the Appellant had indeed misbehaved during the medical examinations.
• The expert testimony of Lt. Col. R. Sharma confirmed that the Appellant’s actions, particularly the squeezing of breasts and nipples, were unnecessary and inappropriate.
• The Court emphasized that the Appellant, as a doctor, held a position of trust, and his actions constituted a breach of that trust, which was not condonable.
• The Court found the Tribunal’s reasons for converting the sentence of cashiering to a fine to be unconvincing. The Tribunal had cited the Appellant’s blemishless record and the delay in the complaint, but the Supreme Court deemed the misconduct serious enough to warrant cashiering.
• The Court clarified that cashiering does not automatically lead to forfeiture of pensionary benefits. A separate order under Section 71(h) of the Army Act, 1950, or proceedings under Regulation 16(a) of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961, are required for forfeiture of pension.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered and rejected the argument that the punishment of cashiering should be converted to a fine. The Court reasoned that the nature of the misconduct and the breach of trust by a medical professional warranted the punishment of cashiering. The Court also considered the argument that the Appellant’s pension should be automatically forfeited. The Court clarified that cashiering does not automatically result in forfeiture of pensionary benefits. The Court held that a separate order under Section 71(h) of the Army Act, 1950, or proceedings under Regulation 16(a) of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961, are required for forfeiture of pension.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The evidence of the complainants was credible and consistent.
• The expert testimony confirmed the inappropriate nature of the Appellant’s actions.
• The Appellant, as a doctor, breached the trust placed in him.
• The Tribunal’s reasons for converting the sentence were unconvincing.
• Cashiering does not automatically lead to forfeiture of pension.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“We are unable to accept the contention of the Appellant that his conviction is unsustainable. A perusal of the evidence of the complainants makes it clear that the Appellant misbehaved with them during the course of their physical examination.”

“We are not convinced with the reasons given by the Tribunal for converting the sentence from cashiering to imposition of fine of Rs.50,000/-. We restore the punishment of penalty of cashiering by taking into account the reprehensible conduct of the Appellant abusing a position of trust being a Doctor which is not condonable.”

“There is merit in the submission of Mr. Sridhar that in the absence of an order passed under Section 71 (h), the pension of the Appellant cannot be forfeited.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench consisting of Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta, and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, with the opinion authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao.

Key Takeaways

• Medical professionals in the armed forces can face severe consequences, including cashiering, for misconduct during patient examinations.
• Cashiering from service does not automatically lead to the forfeiture of pensionary benefits. A separate order or proceedings are required.
• The Armed Forces Tribunal’s decisions can be reviewed and overturned by the Supreme Court if the reasoning is found to be unconvincing or if the punishment is deemed disproportionate to the offense.
• The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the medical profession and the trust placed in doctors, especially in the armed forces.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Respondents to consider the entire record of service of the Appellant and his advanced age while taking a decision to initiate proceedings under the Army Pension Regulations. If the Respondents decide not to initiate such proceedings, the Appellant shall be entitled to all pensionary benefits. Additionally, the amount of Rs. 50,000 deposited by the Appellant was to be refunded to him with interest.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that cashiering from service does not automatically lead to the forfeiture of pensionary benefits. A separate order under Section 71(h) of the Army Act, 1950, or proceedings under Regulation 16(a) of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961, are required for forfeiture of pension. This clarifies the distinct nature of cashiering and pension forfeiture, reinforcing the legal principle established in previous cases like Union of India v. Brig. P.K. Dutta (Retd.) [1995 Supp. (2) SCC 29] and Union of India v. P.D. Yadav [(2002) 1 SCC 405].

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Lt. Col. S.S. Bedi for misbehavior during patient examinations and restored the punishment of cashiering from service. The Court clarified that cashiering does not automatically lead to the forfeiture of pensionary benefits, requiring a separate order or proceedings under the relevant regulations. This judgment underscores the importance of maintaining professional conduct in the armed forces and clarifies the legal relationship between cashiering and pension forfeiture.