RAM NARAYAN TIWARI versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 1104 · Decided: 21-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 1104 
RAM NARAYAN TIWARI 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1978 of 2011) 
FEBRUARY 21, 201.1 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND 
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
AIR FORCE ACT, 1950: 
s. 73 - Punishments awardable by Court-Martial -
Corporal in Air Force - Charged with sexual abuse against a 
boy of 9 years - Punishment of reduction in rank and 
confinement awarded by District Court-Martial commuted by 
0 Confirming Authority to dismissal from service - Held: The 
scale of punishment provided in s.3 clearly confirms the 
position that dismissal from service is a lesser punishment 
than that of detention - Since punishment is itself of dismissal 
from service, there is no question of reduction in rank at all, 
therefore, it cannot be said that tWo punishments have been 
E awarded - Besides, the charge leveled against the delinquent 
was serious and was proved justifying punishment of 
dismissal. 
The appellant, a Corporal in Indian Air Force, was 
F awarded by the District Court Martial the punishment of 
detention for three months and reduction in rank, for 
committing sexual abuse against a boy of nine years. The 
Confirming Authority confirmed the findings of the District 
Court Martial, but commuted the punishment of detention 
G for three months to dismissal from service. The High 
Court declined to interfere. 
H 
It was contended for the appellant that keeping In 
view s.73 of the Air Force Act, 1950, dismissal from 
1104 
RAM NARAYAN TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1105 
service was a more severe punishment than order of A 
reduction in rank and the short term confinement; and 
that awarding two punishments in respect of one offence 
was illegal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELO: .1.1. Section 73 of the Air Force Act, 1950 
provides for'scale of punishment, according to which, the 
most severe;. punishment under the said provision is 
considered to be the punishment of death and, therefore, 
the same has been put on the top followed by C 
imprisonment, detention, cashiering, dismissal from 
service and then other lesser punishments. The scale of 
punishment provided in s.73 of the Act clearly confirms 
the position that dismissal from service is a lesser 
punishment than that of detention in prison. By D 
commuting the punishment of three months detention 
and imposing the punishment of dismissal, the 
Confirming Authority has strictly followed the scale of 
punishment provided for in s.73 of the Act. Since, the 
punishment it$elf is of dismissal from service, there is no 
E 
question of reduction of rank at all. Therefore, it cannot 
be said that two punishments have been awarded to the 
appellant for one single offence. [Para 13, 17) [1111·B·C· 
D; 1112-E·F] 
Union of India and Ors. Vs. R.K. Sharma 2001 (3) Suppl. 
SCR 664 = (2001) 9 sec 592 - relied on. 
F 
2. The appellant belongs to Air Force, which is a 
disciplined service. The allegations made against the· 
appellant were serious. The charge number (2) against G 
him stood proved. The said charge is also serious and 
for an offence of the said nature the authority was 
justified in awarding him the punishment of dismissal 
from service. There is no justification for any interference 
with the nature of punishment awarded to the appellant. 
H 
1106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2011] 2 S.C.R. 
A There was no violation of the provisions of s.73 of the Act. 
[Para 16, 17, 18] [1112-C-D-F-G] 
B 
Case Law Reference: 
2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 664 Relied on 
Para 14 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
1978 of 2011. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 06.04.2007 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 569 of 
c 2000. 
Manoj Prasad for the Appellant. 
P.P. Tripathi, ASG, Shadan Farasat, R. Balasubramanian, 
D D.S. Mahra for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
E 
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and 
order dated 06.04.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the 
Allahabad High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the 
appellant herein and confirming the judgment and order passed 
by the learned single Judge in the Writ Petitioner No. 2341 of 
F 1990 . 
. 3. In order to appreciate the contentions raised before us 
it will be necessary to set out the brief facts of the case. The 
appellant while serving as Corporal in the Indian Air Force -
Police Wing was served with a chargesheet dated 20.03.1980 
- G containing three c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.