S.P. PANDEYversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2314 : 2024 INSC 804

                               S.P. Pandey
                                     v.
                           Union of India & Ors.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 6186 of 2018)
                                21 October 2024
 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Appellant-Airman, was charged for “Violation of good order and Air
       Force Discipline” and “Use of insubordinate language to a superior
       officer”. An order of admonition was passed on 18.05.2010 against
       the appellant by the Officiating Commanding Officer. Armed Force
       Tribunal set aside the punishment of ‘Admonition’ passed against
       the appellant vide order dated 18.01.2011. Not satisfied with the
       order of Armed Forces Tribunal, appellant demanded compensation
       by filing the present appeals.

                                   Headnotes†
       Air Force Act, 1950 - Regulations for the Air Force –
       Misconduct – Measure of determining adequate punishment
       for infractions – Balance and proportion that needs to be
       maintained between an infraction and its punishment will
       always be at the core of good governance – Compensation
       for suffering unnecessary and long-drawn litigation:
       Held: When the institutions that we build grow beyond proportion,
       officers act mechanically and many a times helplessly, ignore the
       simple and readily available remedies that are available in our
       normal lives – An incident like this would have ended if a senior
       officer had at the right time intervened and resolved the issue by
       taking into account the emotional aspect of the dispute – Perhaps
       a simple apology by respondent No. 7 would have gone a long
       way, but that did not happen – One is aware of how insignificant
       the monetary value of loss of dignity could be, but legal remedies
       that they are, enable this Court to settle it only as a measure, a
       token of concern and in recognition of a citizen’s identity and dignity
       – Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and
       having noted the specific and clear findings of the Tribunal, the
       respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1 lakh to the
* Author
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                             2315

                     S.P. Pandey v. Union of India & Ors.


     appellant towards compensation for having suffered an unnecessary
     and a long-drawn litigation that was foisted on him. [Paras 11 and 12]

                                 List of Acts
     Air Force Act, 1950, Regulations of the Air Force.

                              List of Keywords
     Admonition, Good Governance, Misconduct, Balance, Proportion,
     Compensation.

                             Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6186 of 2018
     From the Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2017 in TA No. 13 of
     2017 and Order dated 01.12.2017 in M.A. Nos. 2140 and 2141
     of 2017 in T.A. No. 13 of 2017 of the Armed Forces Tribunal,
     Regional Bench, Lucknow

                          Appearances for Parties
     Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ansh Narayan Tripathi, Nitin Bhardwaj,
     Advs. for the Appellant.
     R Bala, Sr. Adv., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Rohit Pandey, Ishaan
     Sharma, Prahlad Singh, Annirudh Sharma Ii, Mrigank Pathak,
     Advs. for the Respondents.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Order

     Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

1.   The appellant is not satisfied that the Armed Forces Tribunal,
     Jaipur has allowed his OA and quashed the order of Admonition
     passed against him on 18.01.2011. He demands compensation for
     the wrongful order by filing the present appeal. We agreed with
     him and for reasons to follow, allowed the appeal and granted
     compensation.
2.   Facts of the case are that the appellant was enrolled in the Indian Air
     Force in 1997 as Airman in the trade of Radar Fitter. At the relevant
2316                                                      [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


    time, he was posted on the strength of 333 TRU C/o 5 FBSU, Air
    Force where he commenced work from 16.11.2009.
    2.1 The incident in question occurred on 17.05.2010, at about
        14.20 hrs when he was returning home from duty. On his way
        back, he had to stop at a railway crossing in a civil area which
        was closed. The gate was closed due to transit of a train. The
        allegation against the appellant is that, instead of waiting behind
        the vehicles already in line at the railway crossing, he overtook
        all the vehicles, went straight ahead and parked his motorcycle
        in front of the railway gate.
    2.2 Respondent No. 7 a Sqn Ldr (Squadron Leader) who was also
        waiting for the railway barrier to open, approached the appellant
        and in ‘exercise of the responsibility’ conferred on officers of the
        Air Forces under Para 565 of the Regulations questioned the
        appellant for overtaking all vehicles, pulled out the motorcycle
        keys and directed the him to park his motorcycle in Guard Room.
        The respondent no. 7 handed over the keys to Duty NCO and
        informed the appellant that his motorcycle is being confiscated
        for not following good order and Air Force discipline. This led
        to an argument between the appellant and respondent No. 7
        wherein the appellant allegedly used insubordinate language
        (yah kaya gundagardi hai) contrary to Air Force discipline.
        Respondent No. 7 ordered closed arrest of the appellant and
        informed the Commanding Officer and the Adjutant of the Unit.
        Charge sheet for two offences, i.e. “Violation of good order and
        Air Force Discipline” and “Use of insubordinate language to a
        superior officer” was drawn against the appellant.
    2.3 The charge was tried by Officiating Commanding Officer on
        18.05.2010 and an order of Admonition was passed on the
        same day. However, respondent No. 4 the Station Cdr. 5 FBSU
        sought sanction for expunction of punishment entry from the
        documents of the appellant and to proceed with de novo trial of
        the appellant for the above alleged misconduct on the technical
        ground that sanction under Section 83 of the Air Force Act,
        1950 was not obtained.
    2.4 The appellant preferred a statutory complaint dated 24.05.2010.
        This led to a formal investigation as ordered by respondent
        No. 4 to bring out the fact of allegation made by the appellant
        against respondent No. 7 and it was reported that the allegations
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                         2317

                     S.P. Pandey v. Union of India & Ors.


          made by the appellant were false. However, by letter dated
          23.06.2010 the appellant was assured that punishment dated
          18.05.2010 would be cancelled and the Admonition entry will
          be expunged from the record. Relevant portion of letter of Sqn
          Ldr. Fit Cdr. HRM Ft dated 23.06.2010 is as under:-
                           “REPLY TO ROG APPLICATION
                1. Reference is made to your application dated 24
                May 10.
                2. You, are interviewed by the Station Commander
                in two sessions on 18 and 21 June 10 and all the
                issues brought out by you were addressed. Formal
                Investigation was ordered to bring out the fact of the
                allegations made by you against Sqn Ldr HV Pandey
                (27441) F (P). From the FI, it is clear that allegation
                made against Sqn officer were false. You were told
                by the Stn Cdr that punishment given to you dated
                18 May 10 by CO 333 TRU will be cancelled and
                entry will be expunged from the documents.
                3. Application being devoid of merit, is disposed,
                herewith.
                4. You are requested to give written acknowledgement
                regarding receipt of disposal of your application.”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)
3.   Consequently, by order dated 24.06.2010 the appellant was intimated
     that charges raised against him have been expunged under 33(1)
     of the Regulation and punishment entry has been deleted from his
     service documents. The order reads as follows:

           “Tel: AFNET/7742                              333TRU, AF
                                                         C/0 56 APO
                                                         PIN-937333
           333 TRU/C 951/2/P1                               24 Jun 10
           742490-K Cpl SP Pandey Rad Fit

                      EXPUNGEMENTT OF PUNISHMENT
          1.    Reference is made to 5 FBSU, AF letter No 5FBSU/C
                102/1/P1 dated 23 Jun 10.
2318                                                      [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


          2.   It is intimated that the punishment awarded to you by
               the undersigned on 18 May 10 in connection with the
               charge sheet raised by Sqn Ldr HV Pandey ((27441)
               F (P) of 4 Sqn has been expunged under rule 33(1)
               of the Regulation of the Air Force. The punishment
               entry has been deleted from the conduct sheet of
               your service documents.
          3.   This is for your information.
                                                             Sd/- zz
                                                       (R Putatunda)
                                                                Fit Lt
                                                                 CO”
4.   This litigation would not have survived if the above referred letter
     had been given effect to. That didn’t happen. Wg Cdr V.K. Mohan
     proceeded de novo against the same charge and ordered for recording
     of Summary of Evidence on 30.06.2010. The appellant preferred
     a representation to the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief with the
     prayer to stay operation of order dated 30.06.2010 for recording
     of Summary of Evidence and prohibit the Commanding Officer to
     conduct the second trial for the same charges. The representation
     preferred by the appellant was rejected by Chief of Air Staff vide
     order dated 06.01.2011.
5.   In the circumstances, a second Admonition order was passed against
     the appellant dated 18.01.2011. He appealed to respondent No. 2
     and even this was rejected on 28.04.2011. The representation to
     the Chief of Air Staff for reconsideration of order dated 06.01.2011
     which was also rejected on the ground of it being repetitive in nature.
6.   Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the Armed Forces Tribunal
     by filing an Original Application. After hearing the appellant and the
     respondents and having gone through the materials and records
     before it, the Tribunal set aside the punishment of ‘Admonition’ passed
     against the appellant vide order dated 18.01.2011. It is important to
     extract the conclusion of the Tribunal, the relevant part of the order
     is extracted as follows:
          “11. Before proceeding further we may recall that the
          punishment awarded to the petitioner is of ‘admonition’.
          Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                          2319

                     S.P. Pandey v. Union of India & Ors.


          date, the petitioner has retired from service and any
          further indulgence would gain no fruitful result even if the
          punishment of ‘admonition’ is set aside and now the issue
          involved remains only of academic interest.
          12. Be that as it may, we feel it worth mentioning that from
          the sequence of events on record, it is evident that the
          entire episode got triggered by the fact that in a civil area,
          i.e. at a railway crossing, the petitioner, like many other
          service/civil motor cyclists had overtaken the long queue
          of cars to position themselves in front row, close to the
          railway crossing barrier. No doubt, it is expected of every
          Air Warrior/Airman to uphold highest degree of discipline
          inside and outside his service place. But at the same time,
          from the events noticed hereinbefore, it is borne out that
          the petitioner had overtaken the parked four wheelers and
          motorcycles on a public road near the railway crossing
          barrier and had parked his motorcycle in the front row,
          may be to avoid rush of traffic when the barrier opened. It
          appears that this gesture of the petitioner was taken as an
          affront by the Sqn Ldr H.V. Pandey and he approached the
          petitioner from the rear and forcefully took away the keys of
          the motorcycle; confiscated the motorcycle on the ground
          that the petitioner violated traffic rules and general road
          discipline, ordered the petitioner to report to the guard room
          and took the applicant in custody. It was on his orders the
          petitioner was locked in a cell. The strict action taken by
          Sqn Ldr H.V. Pandey in a public place over a trivial issue
          cannot at the same time be appreciated. Even if in the
          opinion of Sqn Ldr H.V. Pandey the petitioner had committed
          some wrong in public place, the circumstances of the case
          required him to have advised the petitioner to mend his ways
          in future keeping in view the high discipline and dignity of
          the Air Force. But the manner in which the whole incident
          was highlighted in full public gaze, and consequent action
          taken by him, permitting a trivial happening to escalate
          out of proportion, cannot be appreciated. An offence is an
          officer and his behaviour should also be officer-like. His
          behaviour has to set up an example. The incident could
          have been handled by the officer more appropriately.
2320                                                      [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


         13. From the record, it is revealed that the petitioner was
         assured in writing on two occasions that the punishment
         entry will be expunged. Despite that, the respondent chose
         to proceed afresh. It gives an indication of vindictiveness
         and perhaps it was instigated by the officer.
         14. For reasons mentioned hereinabove, we are of the
         considered view that the Summary of Evidence and
         punishment of ‘admonition” awarded to the applicant
         deserve to be set aside.
         15. Accordingly, punishment of ‘admonition’ dated
         18.01.2011 awarded to the petitioner is set aside. Impugned
         order dated 28.04.2011 (Annexure-27 to the petition), and
         order dated 06.01.2010 (Annexure-25 to the petition) are
         also set side. Consequences to follow. So far as prayer of
         the petitioner for directing Sqn Ldr H.V. Pandey, respondent
         no.7 to pay compensation to the petitioner is concerned,
         we find that the petitioner has not been able to make out
         a case, hence rejected.
         16. T.A is disposed of accordingly.”
    6.1 It is apparent from the findings of the Tribunal that the respondent
        No. 7, took the incident personally and forcefully confiscated
        the keys of the motorcycle and ordered the appellant to report
        to the Guard room. The Tribunal also notices that he was
        taken into custody. The Tribunal also recorded that at the
        instance of respondent No. 7 the appellant was locked in the
        Cell. While deprecating the conduct of respondent No. 7 for
        adopting such a severe action over a trivial issue, the Tribunal
        opined that the officer of a rank of Sq. Ldr. could have given a
        proper advice to the appellant, to rectify his actions, keeping
        in view the high discipline and dignity of Airforce. However, the
        manner in which respondent No. 7 conducted himself was not
        appreciated. While deprecating the conduct of respondent No. 7
        the Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the appellant was
        subjected to harassment and humiliation giving an impression
        of vindictiveness at the instance of the concerned officers. It is
        for this reason the Tribunal had no hesitation in setting aside
        the punishment. The Tribunal set aside the order of Admonition
        dt. 18.01.2011. It also set aside the order dated 28.04.2011,
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                      2321

                     S.P. Pandey v. Union of India & Ors.


          whereby the appellant’s statutory appeal had been dismissed.
          Lastly, the Tribunal also set aside the order dated 06.01.2010,
          wherein the Air Force Commander had rejected the appellant’s
          representation. Thus, the decision and the findings of the Tribunal
          have attained finality.
     6.2 However, for reason that the Tribunal rejected the prayer for
         compensation, the present appeal filed by the appellant. We
         have gone through the material on record, findings of the
         Tribunal and noted the submissions of Ms. Vanshaja Shukla,
         counsel for the appellant and by Mr. R. Bala, senior counsel
         for the respondents.
7.   The initial service of the appellant for 14 long years, from its
     commencement in 1997 to 2011 was unblemished. This is an admitted
     fact. From the unfortunate incident on 17.05.2010, the appellant’s
     life was embroiled in defending in the disciplinary proceedings
     and contesting the case before the Tribunal. The disproportionate
     measure adopted by the respondents, the assurance of expunging
     the admonition, withdrawal of the same and then the retrial, leading
     to imposition of the punishment caused great amount of distress.
8.   The findings of the Tribunal are categorical. It found that the matter
     was escalated beyond proportion and there is also an element of
     vindictiveness in the action taken against the appellant. More than
     anything, the lone battle of the appellant against the unfair and
     arbitrary treatment meted out to him, we think is the cause and reason
     for the indignation. The institution did not protect him, instead it put
     its full force behind respondent No. 7. Fortunately, the Tribunal set
     the record straight.
9.   Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
     has submitted the financial loss that has occurred to the appellant
     and prayed for appropriate compensation.
10. Small excesses like overtaking the vehicle of one’s senior at a railway
    crossing may be an incident of indiscipline in defense services, but
    the balance and proportion that needs to be maintained between
    such an infraction and its punishment will always be at the core of
    good governance. If the balance is not maintained, the distinction
    between bad governance, impropriety, unfairness and inhuman
    treatment is not much. The Tribunal is right in holding that a small
    incident has unnecessarily grown beyond proportion.
2322                                                           [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                         Digital Supreme Court Reports


11. When the institutions that we build grow beyond proportion, officers
    act mechanically and many a times helplessly, ignore the simple and
    readily available remedies that are available in our normal lives. We
    would have thought that an incident like this would have ended if
    a senior officer had at the right time intervened and resolved the
    issue by taking into account the emotional aspect of the dispute.
    Perhaps a simple apology by respondent No. 7 would have gone
    a long way, but that did not happen, and we are now called upon
    to assess the economic value of the indignity and proceed to grant
    monetary compensation to him. We are aware of how insignificant
    the monetary value of loss of dignity could be, but legal remedies
    that they are, enable us to settle it only as a measure, a token of
    our concern and in recognition of a citizen’s identity and dignity.
12. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and
    having noted the specific and clear findings of the Tribunal, we direct
    the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 1 lakh to the appellant
    towards compensation for having suffered an unnecessary and a
    long-drawn litigation that was foisted on him. The amount may be
    paid within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.
13. The Civil Appeal is disposed of in the above-mentioned terms.

     Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Himanshu Rai, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.)