LexS.P. PANDEY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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. Th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.