Back
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANDEEP MEHTA
S. P. Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
ORDER :
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. The appellant is not satisfied that the Armed Forces Tribunal, Jaipur has allowed his OA and quashed the order of Admonition passed against him on 18.01.2011. He demands compensation for the wrongful order by filing the present appeal. We agreed with him and for reasons to follow, allowed the appeal and granted compensation.
2. Facts of the case are that the appellant was enrolled in the Indian Air Force in 1997 as Airman in the trade of Radar Fitter. At the relevant time, he was posted on the strength of 333 TRU C/o 5 FBSU, Air Force where he commenced work from 16.11.2009.
2.1 The incident in question occurred on 17.05.2010, at about 14.20 hrs when he was returning home from duty. On his way back, he had to stop at a railway crossing in a civil area which was closed. The gate was closed due to transit of a train. The allegation against the appellant is that, instead of waiting behind the vehicles already in line at the railway crossing, he overtook all the vehicles, went straight ahead and parked his motorcycle in front of the railway gate.
2.2 Respondent No. 7 a Sqn Ldr (Squadron Leader) who was also waiting for the railway barrier to open,
Disciplinary actions in the armed forces must be proportionate to the alleged misconduct, and excessive measures can lead to compensation for wrongful treatment.
The initiation of disciplinary action against an officer after being discharged by a criminal court is impermissible, highlighting the importance of maintaining procedural fairness and equal treatmen....
The penalty imposed for negligence in duty was upheld as proportionate and justified, emphasizing the importance of discipline in a disciplined force.
Negligence does not constitute misconduct unless proven intentional or abusive of discretion; mere error of judgment is insufficient for disciplinary action.
The court quashed the enhanced penalty of removal from service, holding that the charges of misconduct were not proved, emphasizing reliability issues in witness testimonies.
Non-compliance with statutory provisions renders show cause notice and punishment order unsustainable in law.
Removal from service upheld for discreditable conduct by disciplined force member captured on viral video/CCTV; inquiry valid without complainant; courts limit review, deferring to authority where pr....
Compounded penalty combining reduction to lower pay stage and lower time-scale under RS(D&A) Rules Rule 6(v)&(vi) unsustainable; must impose single prescribed penalty. Judicial review limits re-appre....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
