Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Airman for Habitual Indiscipline: Union of India vs. Abhishek Pandey (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: November 8, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1350

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can an Air Force personnel be discharged for repeated acts of indiscipline, even if a second warning wasn’t issued before the final discharge order? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving an Airman with a history of misconduct. This case clarifies the interpretation of the Air Force’s policy on habitual offenders and the circumstances under which a second warning is necessary. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The respondent, Abhishek Pandey, was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on September 28, 2004. Over time, he accumulated seven punishment entries in his conduct sheet (3 Red Ink and 4 Black Ink). On April 18, 2012, he received a warning, informing him that he was categorized as a habitual offender. This warning cautioned him that any further disciplinary issues could lead to his discharge under Rule 15 (2) (g) (ii)/ Rule 15(2)(k) of the Air Force Rules, 1969. Despite this, on June 10, 2012, he committed another act of indiscipline, resulting in a ‘Severe Reprimand’ on June 13, 2012. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued on July 11, 2012, asking why he should not be discharged. The respondent submitted his explanation on August 5, 2012, admitting his misconduct but requesting another chance. The Air Officer-in-Charge, however, approved his discharge, finding him unsuitable for the Air Force.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent challenged his discharge before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow, arguing that he was entitled to a second warning as per the policy dated December 16, 1996, governing habitual offenders. The Tribunal accepted his argument, set aside the discharge order, and directed the payment of 25% back wages. The Union of India’s review application was rejected, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Air Force Rules, 1969, particularly Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) which deals with the discharge of personnel whose service is no longer required or who are unsuitable for retention in the Air Force. The Habitual Offenders Policy dated December 16, 1996, issued by the Air Force Headquarters, outlines the procedure for dealing with habitual offenders. This policy stipulates that an Airman, identified as a habitual offender, is entitled to a precautionary warning, informing him that another punishment entry could lead to discharge. Para 2(b) of the policy states that if the competent authority considers giving another chance, a second warning letter must be issued. Para 3 mandates a show cause notice to habitual offenders before any discharge order.

The relevant provision is Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Air Force Rules, 1969 which states:

“15. Termination of Service by the Central Government- (2) The Central Government may discharge any person subject to the Act from the service by reason of- (g) his services being no longer required; or (ii) his being unsuitable to be retained in the Air Force.”

Arguments

The respondent argued that he was entitled to a second warning before being discharged, based on the Habitual Offenders Policy. He contended that the policy mandates a second warning letter whenever the competent authority considers giving another chance.

The Union of India argued that the second warning is only required if the authority intends to give another chance. Since the authority decided against giving another chance, the second warning was not necessary. They argued that the show cause notice issued to the respondent was in accordance with the policy.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

✓ Whether the interpretation of the Policy dealing with habitual offenders by the Tribunal was correct?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following:

• Air Force Rules, 1969, Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) – Regarding discharge of personnel.
• Habitual Offenders Policy dated 16.12.1996 – Air Force Headquarters policy on procedure for dealing with habitual offenders.

Judgment

The Court held that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the Habitual Offenders Policy. The Court clarified that the second warning is only necessary when the competent authority decides to give another chance to the Airman. In this case, the authority decided to proceed with the discharge, making the second warning unnecessary.

The Court observed that the respondent had admitted to his misconduct in his explanation to the show cause notice. The Court found no violation of the procedure prescribed by the Policy dated 16.12.1996.

The Court stated that:

“The Tribunal failed to take into account the fact that para 2 (b) provides for a second warning only when the competent authority considers issuance of final orders but is also of the opinion that another chance should be given to the Airman. The requirement of the second warning letter would be only in such circumstances.”

The Court further stated that:

“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.”

The Court also noted:

“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.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by its interpretation of the Habitual Offenders Policy. The Court emphasized that the policy’s requirement for a second warning is conditional, applying only when the competent authority intends to give another chance to the Airman. The Court also noted the respondent’s admission of misconduct, which further supported the decision to uphold his discharge.

Key Takeaways

✓ A second warning is not mandatory for discharging a habitual offender in the Indian Air Force if the competent authority decides not to give another chance.

✓ The Habitual Offenders Policy requires a second warning only when the authority is considering giving another opportunity to the Airman.

✓ Admission of misconduct by the Airman can be a significant factor in upholding a discharge order.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a second warning is not mandatory for discharging a habitual offender from the Indian Air Force if the competent authority decides against giving another chance. This clarifies the interpretation of the Habitual Offenders Policy, emphasizing the conditional nature of the second warning requirement. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the interpretation of the policy.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the discharge of the Airman, clarifying that a second warning is not mandatory under the Habitual Offenders Policy when the competent authority decides not to give another chance. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of policy interpretation and the consequences of repeated misconduct in the armed forces.