LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus CORPORAL AK. BAKSHI AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. CORPORAL AK. BAKSHI AND ANR. FEBRUARY 23, 1996 B (S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] Indian Air Force Rules, 1969: Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) & Rule 18: Habitual Offenders-Discharge from Indian Air Force in pursuance of Policy Directive dated August 14, 1984-Whether mere discharge simpliciter envisaged under C Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) or tennination of se1vice for misconduct under Rule 18. Indian Air Force Act, 1950: Sections 22 & 189 read with Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) & Rule 18: Habitual offenders-Discharge of from Indian Air Force in pursuance of Policy for Discharge of Habitual Offenders as D presclibed in Policy Directive dated August 14, 1984-Validity of. Section 22 of the Air Force Act, 1950 provides for retirement, release or discharge from service of persons subject to !he Act, by such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed. Sub-section (1) of section 189 empowers the Central Government to make rules for carrying into effect E the provisions of the Act. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 189 authorises the making of rules to provide for the removal, retirement, .release or discharge from service of persons subject to the Act •. F Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Air Force Rules, 1969, framed under section 189 of the Act empowers the Air Officer-in-Charge Administration to discharge persons, enrolled under the Act, found unsuitable for retention in the Air Force. Rule 18 of the said Rules provides for dismissal or removal of a person subject to the Act. The Air Headquarters vide Policy Directive dated August 14, 1984 G laid down the Policy for Discharge of Habitual Offenders prescribing the guidelines to deal firmly with them. Paragraph 4 of the said Policy categorized airmen with total of six and above punishment entries as habitual offenders to be considered for discharge. The Appendix to the said policy detailed the procedure for discharge. H The respondent corporals had been punished for six offences. In 986 \ -- - } U.0.1.v. AK. BAKSHI 987 accordance with the procedure for discharge they were issued notices by A the Group Captain to show cause as to why for the said acts of indiscipline they should not be discharged from service under rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Rules for having become habitual offenders liable for discharge. The recommendation made for their discharge, after considering the replies, was accepted by the Air Officer-in-Charge Administration and approved B by the Air Officer-in-Charge Personnel, and orders for their discharge issued. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed their writ petitions against the said discharge orders. However, on writ appeals the Division Bench took the view that rule 15(2)(g)(ii) makes provision for termination C of services for causes not involving any misconduct and rule 18 provides for termination by way of punishment for misconduct. Allowing the ap- peals it held that discharge under the Policy for Discharge amounts to termination of the services of the airmen for misconduct which led to their conviction and award of punishment under the Act falling under rule 18 of the Rules, and is not mere discharge simpliciter envisaged under rule D .15(2)(g)(ii) of the Rules. Allowing the appeals and restoring the judgment of the Single Judge, the Court HELD : 1. The Division Bench of the High Court was in error in setting aside the orders of discharge of the respondents from the Indian Air Force passed in pursuance of the Policy for Discharge of Habitual Offenders. (996-D; 996-C] E 2. The Policy for Discharge envisages that in cases where an airman F has been awarded punis.hments six times for misconduct, he is to be treated as a habitual offender and action for his discharge from service should be taken against him under rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Rules. This action for discharge is not by way of punishment for the misconducts for which he has already been punished. The basic idea underlying the policy G for discharge is that recurring nature of punishments for misconduct imposed on an airman renders him unsuitable for further retention in the Air Force. Suitability for retention in the Air Force has to be determined on the basis of record of service. The punishments that have been imposed earlier being part of the record of service have to be taken into considera- tion for the purpose of deciding whether such person is suitable for H 988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 2 S.C.R.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.