Disciplinary actions in the armed forces must be proportionate to the alleged misconduct, and excessive measures can lead to compensation for wrongful treatment.

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, approached the appellant and in ‘exercise of the responsibility’ conferred on officers of the Air Forces under Para 565 of the Regulations questioned the appellant for overtaking all vehicles, pulled out the motorcycle keys and directed the him to park his motorcycle in Guard Room. The respondent no. 7 handed over the keys to Duty NCO and informed the appellant that his motorcycle is being confiscated for not following good order and Air Force discipline. This led to an argument between the appellant and respondent No. 7 wherein the appellant allegedly used insubordinate language (yah kaya gundagardi hai) contrary to Air Force discipline. Respondent No. 7 ordered closed arrest of the appellant and informed the Commanding Officer and the Adjutant of the Unit. Charge sheet for two offences, i.e. “Violation of good order and Air Force Discipline” and “Use of insubordinate language to a superior officer” was drawn against the appellant.

2.3 The charge was tried by Officiating Commanding Officer on 18.05.2010 and an order of Admonition was passed on the same day. However, respondent No. 4 the Station Cdr. 5 FBSU sought sanction for expunction of punishment entry from the documents of the appellant and to proceed with de novo trial of the appellant for the above alleged misconduct on the technical ground that sanction under Section 83 of the Air Force Act, 1950 was not obtained.

2.4 The appellant preferred a statutory complaint dated 24.05.2010.

This led to a formal investigation as ordered by respondent No. 4 to bring out the fact of allegation made by the appellant against respondent No. 7 and it was reported that the allegations made by the appellant were false. However, by letter dated 23.06.2010 the appellant was assured that punishment dated 18.05.2010 would be cancelled and the Admonition entry will be expunged from the record. Relevant portion of letter of Sqn Ldr. Fit Cdr. HRM Ft dated 23.06.2010 is as under:-

3. Conseq