When Institutions Grow Beyond Proportion, Officers Act Mechanically Ignoring Simple Remedies: Supreme Court Grants 1L Compensation To IAF Airman

The Court said that if the balance between in the wrong done and the punishment is not maintained, the distinction between bad governance, impropriety, unfairness and inhuman treatment is not much.

The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal demanding compensation for the wrongful order after he was not satisfied with the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal that allowed his OA and quashed the order of Admonition passed against him.

The bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “Small excesses like overtaking the vehicle of one’s senior at a railway crossing may be an incident of indiscipline in defence 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.”

Advocate Vanshaja Shukla appeared for the Appellant and Senior Advocate R. Bala appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts-

The Appellant, an Airman in the Indian Air Force, faced allegations after overtaking vehicles and parking his motorcycle in front of a closed railway gate while returning from duty. Following an argument, he was charged and an order of admonition was passed. However, the Station Commander sought a retrial on technical grounds on the ground that the initial trial lacked proper sanction under Section 83 of the Air Force Act. Although the initial punishment was expunged, a new trial commenced, resulting in a second order of admonition. The Appellant's subsequent appeals were rejected and he approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, which set aside the order of admonition but denied compensation. Hence, the present Appeal.

The Court said that the disproportionate measure adopted by the respondents, the assurance of expunging the admonition, withdrawal of the same and then the retrial, leading to the imposition of the punishment caused a great amount of distress.

The Court observed, “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.”

The Court further observed, “…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.”

The Court directed Respondents to pay Appellant ₹1 Lakh as compensation.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Appeal.