Ex LAC Pratap Singh (Air Force) vs UOI & Others on 16 April 2026

O R D E R

16.04.2026

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for directing the Respondents to quash and set aside impugned Discharge Order dt 23.02.2015 and re-instate the Applicant back in Service with all back wages, including service, seniority, pay and allowances to meet the ends of equity, justice and fair play.

2. After perusal of records and hearing the matter at length, it is revealed that on incurring seven entries in his conduct sheet, after issuing Show Cause Notice and consideration of his Reply to the Show Cause Notice, the Applicant was discharged from Service on 23.02.2015 under Rule 15(2) (h)(ii) of Air Force Rules, 1969 by the Competent Authority, ie., Air Officer-in-Charge Personnel after categorizing him as a habitual offender. After having incurred four red ink entries and two black ink entries, the Applicant was duly warned by his

Commanding Officer in writing on 18.05.2013, counselling him to desist from acts of indiscipline as any further addition of a punishment entry would result in initiating action for his discharge from service in accordance with the Habitual Offender Policy issued vide Air HQ letter dt 18.12.1996. However, despite the aforesaid warning dt 18.05.2013, the Applicant again indulged in an act of indiscipline on 27.06.2013 and was awarded “Admonition” for the same on 01.05.2014 by his Commanding Officer. On perusal of his conduct sheet, it was found that he was a poor Airman material and not amenable to the service discipline. Thereafter, he was issued with Show Cause Notice on 09.09.2014 for his contemplated discharge from Service under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of Air Force Rules, 1969. After considering his Reply to the Show Cause Notice vis-à-vis his entire service record, the Applicant was discharged from Service through a Speaking Order dt 12.01.2015 under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of Air Force Rules, 1969.

3. On perusal of records, it is also revealed that the Applicant has not preferred any appeal before the Competent Authority, ie., Chief of the Air Staff against the Order of his discharge from Servicevide Speaking Order dt 12.01.2015 issued by Air Officer-in-Charge Personnel (Annexure R/6). After knowing the same, Learned Counsel seeks permission to withdraw the OA with liberty to file a fresh representation before the Competent Authority with regard to his prayer in the OA in the light of Air Force Act/ Air Force Rules and various judgments / Orders placed on file.

4. Taking note of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the Applicant to withdraw the OA with liberty sought for with directions that in case the Applicant makes a fresh representation before the Competent Authority with regard to his prayer in the OA within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order, the Competent Authority shall decide the case of the Applicant expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months thereafter. The outcome of the representation shall be intimated to the Applicant by Air Force Authorities.

5. The OA is disposed off accordingly. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

6. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-