UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus R. KARTHIK

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 105 · Decided: 21-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
105
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
R. KARTHIK
(Criminal Appeal No. 831 of 2015)
JANUARY 21, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Dismissal from service – Of a sailor in Naval forces – Pursuant
to proceedings against the sailor  –  Upon complaint from superior
officer alleging that the sailor used physical force against him –
Application before Armed Forces Tribunal – Tribunal substituted
the punishment of dismissal from service to the punishment of his
detention for 75 days – Appeal by State to Supreme Court – Held:
In the facts of the case, the order of Tribunal setting aside the
dismissal order on the ground that the punishment was
disproportionate to the misconduct, is within the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal – Supreme Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction would
be slow in interfering with the substituted punishment, unless the
order of Tribunal is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or
capricious – The view taken by the Tribunal in the present case is
patently not illegal – Navy Act, 1957 – s. 45(a) – Armed Forces
Tribunal Act, 2007 – ss. 15(6) and 30.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 In terms of Section 15 of the Armed Forces
Tribunal Act, 2007, the Tribunal exercises jurisdiction, powers
and authority against any order, decision, finding or sentence
passed by a court martial or any matter connected therewith or
incidental thereto.  Sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act
empowers the Tribunal to substitute the findings of the court
martial which includes the disciplinary proceedings under the said
Act (Section 3 (f) of the AFT Act) and also to interfere if the
sentence is found to be excessive, illegal or unjust.  [Para 10]
[110-D-F]
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 105
105
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
1.2 The Commanding Officer who was on the high seas with
the Sailor and the superior officer was aware of the extent of
misconduct of the Sailor.  None of the three witnesses have
deposed regarding striking of the superior officer by the Sailor.
The superior officer has not made himself available before the
Investigating Officer or the Executive Officer.  It has also come
on record that the superior officer has been found to be guilty for
using abusive language against the Sailor.  Even though, the
superior officer has used abusive language but the Sailor was not
expected to retort and hit the superior officer.  The conduct of
the Sailor cannot be condoned in any manner.  [Paras 9, 11 and
12] [110-D; 111-E-F]
1.3 The order passed by the Tribunal to set aside the
dismissal is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal finding that the
punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct.  This
Court in appellate jurisdiction under Section 30 of the  Act would
be slow in interfering with the substituted punishment, unless
the order passed by the Tribunal is found to be arbitrary,
unreasonable or capricious. The view taken by the Tribunal is
not patently illegal warranting interference in the present appeal.
[Para 13] [111-G-H; 112-A]
2. However, it is directed that the respondent shall be
reinstated within two months but shall not be entitled to any back
wages from the date of dismissal till reinstatement but he shall
be entitled to computation of all consequential benefits including
pay fixation.   [Para 14]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 831 of 2015.
From the Judgment and Order dated  06.02.2015 of the   Armed
Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai in O.A. (Appeal) No. 45 of
2014 and order dated 20.03.2015 in M.A. No. 53 of 2015 in O.A. (Appeal)
No. 45 of 2014.
Anmol Chandan, Deepak Goel, Arvind Kumar Sharma, B.V.
Balram Das, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ashok Panigrahi, Adv. (A.C.),
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
107
Anmol Tayal, S. Vinay Ratnakar, Nabab Singh,   Advs. for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional
Bench, Chennai are subject matter of challenge by the Union of India.
Vide the said orders, the verdict dated 24th July, 2013 of Summary Trial
dismissing the respondent1 from service was partly modified by setting
aside the order of dismissal but substituting it with punishment of 75
days detention and maintaining second part of sentence i.e. deprivation
of First Good Conduct Badge.
2. The Sailor entered in Naval service on 31st July, 2008 when he
was about 19 years of age having born on 1st November, 1989.  He was
on

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.