Summary
An airman's admonition for overtaking a queue at a railway crossing and arguing with a Squadron Leader had been set aside by the Armed Forces Tribunal, which found the action disproportionate and vindictive but refused compensation. The Supreme Court held that the airman had been put through unnecessary, long-drawn proceedings, including a second trial after he was assured in writing that the first punishment would be expunged, and awarded him Rs. 1 lakh as compensation.
Issues
- Whether the appellant, whose punishment of admonition the Armed Forces Tribunal set aside as disproportionate and vindictive, was entitled to compensation that the Tribunal had refused.
- Whether the disciplinary action taken over a minor infraction at a civil railway crossing kept a proper proportion between the infraction and its punishment.
Held
- The Tribunal's findings had attained finality: a trivial incident was escalated out of proportion, the appellant was arrested and confined over it, and he was tried afresh on the same charge despite written assurances that the first admonition would be cancelled and expunged, which indicated vindictiveness. (¶¶ 4, 6.1, 8)
- Even where a minor act such as overtaking vehicles at a railway crossing may be indiscipline in the defence services, keeping balance and proportion between the infraction and its punishment lies at the core of good governance; without it, the line between bad governance, unfairness and inhuman treatment becomes thin. (¶ 10)
- The appellant had 14 years of admitted unblemished service and was drawn into years of disciplinary proceedings and litigation in which the institution backed the officer rather than protecting him. Although money cannot truly measure a loss of dignity, compensation was awarded as a token recognising the appellant's dignity and the unnecessary litigation forced on him. (¶¶ 7, 8, 11, 12)
Result
Appeal disposed of; respondents directed to pay the appellant Rs. 1 lakh as compensation within 30 days.