Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s substitution of a sailor’s dismissal with 75 days’ detention while retaining deprivation of his First Good Conduct Badge. The Tribunal had statutory power to mitigate disproportionate punishment, and its decision was not arbitrary or patently illegal on this record. The Court did not condone striking a superior officer. Reinstatement was directed within two months with consequential computation and pay fixation, but without back wages for the dismissal-to-reinstatement period.
Issues
- Whether the Tribunal exceeded its authority by replacing dismissal with a lesser punishment in the sailor’s disciplinary case.
Provisions considered
- Section 15(6), Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007The Tribunal may substitute findings in the covered disciplinary proceedings and remit, mitigate or commute an excessive, illegal or unjust sentence. (¶¶ 10, 13)
Held
- The superior officer was not examined or made available for cross-examination, and none of the three witnesses testified to the alleged striking. The officer had himself been punished for abusive language. These circumstances bore on the Tribunal’s assessment, although the sailor’s retaliation could not be condoned. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12)
- The Tribunal acted within its statutory jurisdiction in finding dismissal disproportionate and substituting punishment. In appellate jurisdiction the Court would be slow to interfere unless that order was arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious; no warrant for interference was established here. (¶¶ 10, 13)
Result
Union’s appeal dismissed. Sailor directed to be reinstated within two months, without back wages from dismissal to reinstatement, but with computation of all consequential benefits including pay fixation. Tribunal’s substituted detention and deprivation of First Good Conduct Badge left intact.