Discharge from military service under the Air Force Rules is not deemed punitive when based on unsuitability, maintaining compliance with procedural fairness despite procedural leniency.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. Choudhury, J.

1. We have heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned Central Government Counsel, representing the Union of India/respondents.

2. The present writ petition is directed against the Order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Guwahati, in Original Application No. 56/2019.

3. Under the order impugned in the present writ petition, the discharge of the petitioner from the service in the Indian Air Force was negated by the learned Tribunal.

4. The facts are largely undisputed.

5. The petitioner joined the Indian Air Force as a trainee on 28.12.2011. He was awarded 1^st Red-Ink entry on 04.11.2016, 2^nd on 24.05.2017, and 3^rd on 20.08.2018.

6. Though on 01.07.2018 the authorities proposed to promote him to the rank of Corporal, the promotion was not effected due to the pendency of a departmental inquiry.

7. Thereafter, on 19-08-2018, while the petitioner was under Quick Reaction Team (QRT) duty, he was found severely intoxicated at Air Force Dhaba in the domestic area, and accordingly, the 4^th Red-Ink Entry was awarded to him on the very same date, i.e. on 19.08.2018, for this offence. Subsequently, he was summarily tried on 10-09-2018 under Section 82 of the Air Force Act, 1950, and was awarded 7 days' detention.

8. Subsequently, on 06.12.2018, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Air Force Rules, 1969 to show cause as to why he should not be discharged from service. The petitioner filed his reply to such show cause notice on 24.12.2018.

9. The petitioner contended in his reply that he was an innocent Airman and that he was not aware of the consequences of the outcomes of those charges. Beyond that, he also requested that his case be considered sympathetically, and he may be allowed to serve the organisation with high morale and full motivation.

10. On the fateful day, according to him, he felt weak in the afternoon after a long duty, as he had not taken lunch and was scheduled to join the night QRT duty again. Accordingly, he ordered for some dinner at the Air Force Dhaba, and when the packaging of the dinner was delayed, he went to the Airman Bar, took only 2 pegs of Rum as authorised, and returned to the Dhaba immediately.

11. Thereafter, his application for revision and a waiver of the award of 7 days' detention was rejected on 30.01.2019. Subsequently, his revision application for removal of the Red-Ink Entries was also rejected by an order dated 22.04.2019. Subsequently, on 26.08.2019, the impugned order of discharge was issued.

12. Mr. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that discharging the petitioner from service in the given facts of the present case amounts to a punishment and such punishment cannot be imposed in the manner that has been done.

13. According to him, while discharging, the grounds taken by the petitioner in his reply were not even dealt with, violating the principles of natural justice.

14. Alternatively, referring to the discharge order, Mr. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the discharge order itself records the good character, exceptional proficiency and general ability of the petitioner in trade. Therefore, the award of the extreme punishment of discharge from service is disproportionate.

15. Per contra, Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned Central Government Counsel, argues that the order has rightly been passed and such discharge cannot be termed as a punishment; rather, such discharge is for the reason of unsuitability, and the certification of good character and exceptional proficiency and general ability in trade is recorded for the reason that the discharge was not a punishment so that the petitioner may get future engagement elsewhere.

16. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material placed on record, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, warranting any inter