SC revokes wrongful termination of IAF officer after 32 years

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has restored the honour of a former Indian Air Force official, R Sood, by revoking his wrongful termination from service more than three decades ago, ensuring he receives due service benefits and a formal sign-off.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday revoked the order of wrongful termination from service of a former Indian Air Force official passed more than three decades ago and restored his honours in a case regarding the alleged use of criminal force against a junior fellow.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and K V Viswanathan found that disproportionate punishment was given to ex-squadron leader R Sood on September 22, 1993 while his commanding officer, a wing commander rank officer whose order Sood followed, was let off leniently.

"...justice demands that the ignominy with which the appellant (Sood) had to survive the past more than three decades is obliterated, the wrongful termination of his service be revoked and his honour restored," the bench said, adding, "The order of dismissal from service dated September 22, 1993 stands set aside."

The bench said that since Sood, having since crossed the age of superannuation, cannot be reinstated in service but in law, was entitled to claim all consequential service benefits which would have accrued to him, had he not been fastened with such illegal order of dismissal.

"Appellant could not work beyond September 22, 1993 admittedly because of the illegal order of termination and not owing to any fault on his part," the bench noted and directed that arrears of salary and allowances to the extent of 50 per cent from September 23, 1993 till the scheduled date of his retirement from service be given alongwith notional promotion, for which the appellant's case may be placed before the Review Departmental Promotion Committee according to the governing rules for consideration.

It said pensionary benefits and other benefits should be given to him with interest.

"Irrespective of service benefits, restoration of honour remains the foremost concern of defence personnel. We restore it with the direction that on a date to be fixed by the Chief of Air Staff, the appellant shall be signed off in the normal manner he would have otherwise been entitled to, but for the order of dismissal," the bench ordered, and said that all the directions be complied with within a period of three months.

It set aside the order of the high court which upheld the disciplinary proceedings against Sood.

Disparity in Punishment

Finding fault with the order of termination of service, the bench said Sood's superior officer was visited with the penalty of 'severe displeasure for three years' whereas he was ordered to be dismissed from service.

It said the court finds it imperative to bear in mind that queries were repeatedly raised as to the rationale for imposing such a comparatively lenient punishment upon the senior officer while punishing the appellant with dismissal.

"The only explanation forthcoming was that the superior officer had already superannuated and, therefore, no further action could be taken against him. This explanation does little to assuage our concern. Maintaining and carrying forward the high traditions and the standard of discipline in the armed forces cannot be overemphasised.

"The punishment of 'displeasure' was imposed on the Wg. Cmdr. before he had superannuated. It is not for us to question the Government, in the course of these proceedings, why the Wg. Cmdr. was let off leniently; however, the question that certainly looms large is why was the appellant singled out for a harsher punishment despite his discharge from the criminal case?" the bench said.

It said the court unhesitatingly holds that when a comparatively lesser penalty has been imposed upon an officer with a more significant role, such disparity ought to have weighed with the authorities while determining the punishment to be inflicted upon the appellant.

"In the absence of distinguishing features, the appellant ought to have been treated on a par with the Wg. Cmdr. The principle of equality would be violated when a subordinate officer is meted out the harshest punishment for complying with a wrongful order of his superior, while the latter, who issued it, gets a lenient treatment leading to a reprieve of sorts," the bench said.

Court's Ruling on Disciplinary Action

The top court also said when the Indian Air Force (IAF) has elected to have the alleged offence tried by the criminal court (from where Sood was discharged for lack of material), it is clear that they then cannot fall back on either a court martial or any disciplinary action.

"Once the road is chosen, the traveller must walk it to the end," the top court said.

Background of the Incident

The incident occurred in 1987, at the time when Sood was posted as 'Senior Operation Officer' in a remote village in the Thar desert and stationed in a building belonging to the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF).

A driver employed with GREF, in an inebriated state, caused damage to the radar, an instrument of critical operational importance in desert conditions, and committed certain other acts of misconduct.

On the night of March 29, 1987, Sood along with four others, took the driver away from the camp in a jeep and left him at a secluded location approximately five kilometres from the nearest Border Security Force (BSF) post and about 30 kilometres from the IAF camp.

A missing report was lodged with the civil police on March 31, 1987, and on April 2, 1987, the mortal remains of the driver were recovered from the same location.