Ex AC (UT) Sachin Godara vs UOI & Others on 23 February 2026

1. 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, DHQ PO, New Delhi-110011

2. 2. Air Cmdr Trg (G) Air Cmde, Air Headquarters (Vayu Bhawan), Rafi Marg, New Delhi

3. 3. Mechanical Transport Trade Training Institute AF Avadi, Chennai, Tamilnadu - 600055

4. 4. The Airmen Training School, Sambra, Karnataka - 591124 .... Respondents 

For Applicant : Mr Anjali Minocha/Sunita Sinwar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr Pyare Lal, Advocate

**CORAM :**

**HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J) HON'BLE MR SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)**


1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has made following prayer:

1. (a) To direct the respondents to bring all relevant medical and academic documents of the Applicant on record.

2. (b) To pass an order directing Respondents to re-instate the Applicant with immediate effect with all consequential benefits wef 04.03.2021, ie., the date of his discharge.

3. (c) The Applicant should be given at least one more opportunity to appear for Term-II Test for Auto Fit Trade after re-instatement into service. In case he still does not qualify the same, his case may be considered for change of other suitable trade as per the policy on the subject.

4. (d) The Order for any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems appropriate in circumstances of matter may please be passed in favour of the Applicant.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 26.06.2019 after qualifying all the examinations and physical tests on his own merit and completed his Basic Training at Airmen Training School (ATS), Belagavi on 13.12.2019. Thereafter, the Applicant reported at Mechanical Transport Trade Training Institute (MTTI), Avadi, Chennai which commenced on 06.01.2020. The Applicant submits that due to challenging circumstances, ie., commitment to various duties, constant pain on right foot due to a boil, continued treatment in Station Medicare Centre and Military Hospital, two surgeries and also mental tension due to heart disease of his father, the Applicant could not qualify the Mid Course Knowledge Test (MCKT) conducted from 01.02.2021 to 10.02.2021. Therefore, the Applicant was issued with Show Cause Notice dt 16.02.2021 for his contemplated discharge from Service under Rule 15(2)(i) of Air Force Rules, 1969. The Applicant replied to the Show Cause Notice on 17.02.2021 apprising the Respondents for the challenging circumstances with a prayer to grant him an opportunity to improve his performance. However, without considering the reply submitted by the Applicant, the Respondents arbitrarily discharged the Applicant from Service on 04.03.2021 under Rule 15(2)(i) of Air Force Rules, 1969, "Unlikely to become an efficient Airman". The Applicant submits that despite the request of the Applicant, the Respondents made no efforts to help the Applicant by way of extra classes after training hours to enable him to qualify the examinations nor the case was referred to the higher authorities for their consideration. The Applicant was detailed for escort duties till 25.10.2020 but he was relieved of his these duties on 05.11.2020 due to which the Applicant missed the scheduled classes from 26.10.2020 to 05.11.2020. Moreover, the Applicant was threatened by his CO Wing and in connivance with the REB officials, he made sure that the Applicant failed in the examination. The aggrieved Applicant filed OA No 170/2021 before this Tribunal for passing orders to reinstate the Applicant in Service which was disposed off vide Order dt 27.09.2023 by directing the Respondents to reconsider the case of the Applicant in case the Applicant makes a fresh representation. However, the fresh representation filed by the Applicant was dismissed by the Respondents vide Speaking Order dt 15.03.2024. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents filed a detailed reply to the Application. While not disputing the basic facts submitted by the Applicant, the Respondents have submitted that the Applicant reported for the Joint Basic Phase Training (JBPT) at ATS, Belagavi on 30.06.2019 which commenced on 01.07.2019. During JBPT, the Applicant initially failed in Diagnostic Test and again, he failed in JBPT End Test, which he cleared in re-test. On completion of JBPT, the Applicant was allocated Auto Fit Trade and the Trade Phase Training (TPT) commenced on 06.01.2020 at Mechanical Transport Trade Training Institute (MTTI), AF Avadi, Chennai. During Mid Term Test (MTT) of Term-I, the Applicant was admitted in MH, Chennai due to a minor boil for 13 days (15.02.2020 to 27.02.2020) for medical treatment and his absence period was regularized in term of Para 12(b) of TCAS/Part-II/Airmen Training/02/20. He failed in MTT of Term-I held on 28.02.2020, however, he was permitted to continue his training of Term-I, as failure in MTT in a particular term is not considered as a disqualifying criterion for appearing in Term End Test (TET). The Applicant passed in TET-I by scoring 58.25% marks. Term-II of TPT commenced on 27.04.2020. The Applicant failed in Mid Term Test (MTT) of Term-II (MTT-II) conducted on 20.06.2020 by scoring 41% marks as against the minimum passing marks of 50%. The Applicant was issued with a letter of caution to improve his academic performance in upcoming examination and additional classes were provided to him and the Applicant was allowed to continue his training. Despite letter of caution and additional classes provided to him for improving his academic performance, the Applicant failed in Mid-Course Knowledge Test (MCKT) conducted from 03.08.2020 to 11.08.2020 by scoring just 31.50% marks in Part-I and 34.75% marks in Part-II, as against the minimum passing marks of 50%. Since the Applicant had failed in more than one part of MCKT, in terms of Para 9 (a) of TCASI/Pt II/Airmen Training/1/20, Para 31 of AFO 14/2015 and Para 2(b) of IAP 12660 Chapter IX, the Applicant was not eligible for re-test. Accordingly, Station Review Board (SRB) was conducted on 18.08.2020 in accordance with provisions of Para 7 and 12 of TCAS/Part-II/Airmen Training/02/20. As per the approval of SRB, the Applicant was back-phased to next junior intake of the same trade and same term, which was scheduled to commence wef 26.10.2020 and his father was also intimated about poor performance of the Applicant vide letter dt 18.08.2020. Since the Applicant was not under any active training from 18.08.2020 to 25.10.2020, he was detailed for escort duty to MH, Chennai from where he was relieved from escort duty on 05.11.2020 and permitted to continue his training of Term-II of TPT. However, despite getting adequate study time, the Applicant again failed in MCKT at the end of Term-II conducted from 01.02.2021 to 10.02.2021 by scoring just 26% marks in Part-I and 39.25% in Part-II and 44% marks in Part-IV i.e., approximately three months after relieving him from escort duties from MH, Chennai. In terms of Para 11 of TCASI/Pt-II/Airmen Training/02/2019 and Para 31(b) of AFO 14/2015 and its Corrigendum 13/2017, only onetime back phasing on poor academic grounds is permissible during Trade-Phase Training. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Applicant by his Commanding Officer on 16.02.2021 to provide him an opportunity to explain as to why he should not be given cease training and discharge from service on the grounds of his/poor academic performance. The reasons brought out by the Applicant in the reply to the Show Cause Notice were duly considered by the Competent Authority, i.e., Commanding Officer.

4. During TPT at MTPL Avadi, record of the Applicant's academic performance is as under- <table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th>Ser No</th> <th>Type of Examination</th> <th>Max Marks</th> <th>Marks Scored</th> <th>% marks</th> <th>Result</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>(a)</td> <td>Mid Term Test-I</td> <td>100</td> <td>07.00</td> <td>7%</td> <td>Fail</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(b)</td> <td>Term End Test-I</td> <td>200</td> <td>116.50</td> <td>58.25%</td> <td>Pass</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(c)</td> <td>Mid Term Test-II</td> <td>100</td> <td>41.00</td> <td>41%</td> <td>Fail</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(d)</td> <td>Mid Course Knowledge Test (Intake 02/2019)</td> <td>500</td> <td>229.25</td> <td>45.85%</td> <td>Fail (Back phased)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(e)</td> <td>Mid Course Knowledge Test (Intake 01/20)</td> <td>500</td> <td>217.25</td> <td>43.45%</td> <td>Fail (CT &amp; discharged)</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

5. On second time failure to achieve minimum qualifying standard, SRB was conducted on 18.02.2021, which awarded cease training and discharge of the Applicant from service on grounds of poor academic performance under the provisions of Para 7(c) of TCASI/Part-II/Airmen Training/02/20 and Rule 15(2)(j) of AF Rules, 1969. In view of this, the Respondents have reiterated that despite back phasing, the Applicant could not score the minimum passing marks of 50%, therefore, he was discharged from Service as per the existing rules. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have submitted that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

6. During the course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that due to COVID-19 pandemic and detachment of the Applicant on escort duty at MH Chennai, the Applicant could not focus on his studies. However, the Respondents without examining the facts submitted by the Applicant, ordered him to be discharged from Service and prayed that the Applicant should have been given at least one more chance to appear in the examination.

7. We have heard Learned Counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed before us.

8. The Eligibility Criteria and Procedure for Re-Examination are mentioned in Para 9 of TCASI/Pt-II/ Airmen Training/01/20, which reads as under:- "9. Towards training a recruit, a great deal of effort goes in the form of training hours, financial expenditure etc. If due to certain reasons the trainee fails in an examination or he is back phased all these efforts are wasted, in order to avoid this wastage, a trainee is given another opportunity to appear and clear the examination. The criteria and procedure to be followed for considering a trainee's eligibility for re-exam are as follows:

(a) During Trade Phase Training, a re-examination is permitted to a trainee if he fails in any one part only of the Trade Factor and has scored at least 30% marks in the failed part during TET/MCKT/CEKT. Trainee will be eligible for re-examination specifically in the failed part only.

(b) In case of failure in any components of General Factor, i.e., ALQ, GSK, GST, Computer, English and Sports; and trainee scores at least 30% marks in each failed components, he needs to appear in re-exam of those failed components only.

(c) The re-examination will be conducted after seven and 10 days of declaration of the result of MCKT and CEKT, respectively.

(d) If a trainee fails to appear in the main examinations due to reasons beyond his control, he will be eligible for appearing in re-examination during each Term End Test, MCKT or CEKT conducted either by UEB or REB (T).

(e) One re-examination is admissible at each TET/ MCKT/ CEKT subject to meeting the criteria. Additional coaching classes are to be conducted before re-examination. A record is to be maintained for such trainees by obtaining signature of trainee by TI/TTI.

(f) Trainees failing in Mid-Term Test (MTT) conducted by UEB will not be given re-examination. Scoring of pass marks in MTT is not the eligibility criteria for appearing in TET/MCKT/CEKT and will not be the purview of URB/SRB. MTT will be a guideline for identification of weak trainees and introduction of remedial measures. **However, a "Letter of Caution" is to be issued by TI/TTI to such candidates as per Appendix A.**

(g) For the purpose of counting the number of REB(T) examinations, the re-examination will be clubbed with main examination and will not be taken as a separate chance.

9. The procedure for Cease Training and Discharge are mentioned in Para 16 (a) of TCASI/Pt-II/ Airmen Training/02/20, which reads as under:- **"16. Cease Training and Discharge Under Rule 15(2)(i) of AF Rules, 1969 (Unlikely to Make an Efficient Airman).**

(a) **CT & Discharge on Poor Performance.** The procedure for CT and Discharge on poor performance is as follows:- Total two failures to achieve the minimum qualifying standard in TET/MCKT/CEKT conducted by UEB/REB(T) during Trade Phase Training (both main and re-exam failures are considered as one failure).

(ii) On recommendations of discharge to a trainee by URB, a **Show Cause Notice (SCN)** as per **Appendix H** is to be issued to the trainee to give him any opportunity to explain **'why should he be not given Cease Training and Discharge on grounds of poor performance'.**

(iii) On receipt of reply to SCN within 7 days, the case is to be put to SRB for consideration. A copy of SCN and the reply to SCN are to be enclosed in the TPRC. The trainee is also to be issued a **'Notice to the Trainee to present himself before SRB'**, on the date intimated to him, failing which the case will be decided ex-parte by SRB. The format of the notice is given at **Annexure 8 to Appendix B** to this TCASI."

10. The Guidelines for Back-phasing of the Recruit to Next a junior next entry are mentioned in TCASI/Pt-II/Airmen Training/02/20, the relevant paragraphs of which reads as under:- "11. **Back-phasing to Next Junior Entry.** Only one back-phasing is permitted during each phase of training, i.e., JBPT and Trade Phase Training. In case Review Board is of the opinion that the trainee cannot make the grade if permitted to continue with the same entry, then he is to be considered for back-phasing as per guidelines enumerated in AFO 14/2015 amended vide AFO 13/2017 and policies in vogue. The occasions/circumstances when a trainee can be back phased are as below:

- (a) Poor Academic Performance.

- (b) Prolonged Absence from Training.

- (c) Lack of Airmen Like Qualities.

12. **Criteria for Back-phasing.**

(a) **On Poor Academic Grounds.**

(i) In-eligibility to appear in MCKT/CEKT exams due to any reason or on first time failure of a trainee in TET/MCKT/CEKT examination, the trainee will be liable to be back-phased to next junior entry (in the same entry) provided he has not been back-phased earlier on poor academic grounds during TPT.

(ii) To recommend for approval by HC TC, cases of ab-initio for the second back-phasing, provided the case merits such an exceptional consideration like leave on extreme compassionate ground, could not appear for REB(T)/ETE exam, Sports T/D or other service exigencies, etc.

(b) **On Prolonged Absence from Training.**

(i) An ab-initio trainee may be considered for back phasing if his prolonged total absence from training is more than 21 days (including holidays) in a term of 16 weeks continuously or cumulatively due to reasons such as hospitalization, leave on compassionate ground, AWOL, detention on discipline grounds, etc.

(ii) A second back phasing in the same trade is considered by SRB only on medical grounds or grounds beyond the control of trainee only in exceptional cases.

13. **Cease Training and Discharge.** The cases of Cease Training and Discharge (CT & Discharge) of trainees to be considered by Review Boards under Rule 15(2)(j) & (k) of AF Rules, 1969. It is imperative to be cautious while considering the case for CT & Discharge under Rule 15(2)(j) & 15(2)(k) of AF Rules, 1969. The complete documents along with TPRC of the trainee, discharged under these clauses, are to be dispatched to AFRO. A copy of the same is to be retained at TTI/TI for future reference."

11. The Guidelines for Review and Criteria for Back-phasing are mentioned in Para 31 of AFO 14/2015, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- "31. The Review Board is to examine each case of failure and/or poor performance at various stages of training, interview each trainee separately and consider all relevant aspects so as to determine the reasons for his failure and the opportunities offered to him for performing to the requisite standards. After considering all aspects, the Review Board may recommend one of the following cause of action:- (a) xxxxx (b). **Back-phasing to Next Junior Entry.** Only one back-phasing will be permitted during each phase of training, i.e., JBPT and TPT (including re-allocated trade if any). In case Review Board is of the opinion that the trainee cannot make the grade if permitted to continue with the same entry, then he is to be considered for back-phasing under the following circumstances.

1. (i) Poor Academic Performance.

2. (ii) Prolonged absence from training.

3. (iii) Lack of Airmen Like Qualities.

(c) **Criteria for Back-Phasing on Poor Academic Grounds.**

(i) Due to failure of a trainee in TET/REB(T) examination (both main and re-exam failure are considered as one failure), the trainee will be back-phased to next junior entry, provided he has not been back-phased earlier on poor academic grounds during JBPT and TPT.

(ii) A trainee, who has been re-allocated with a new trade on Medical grounds only, will be considered for one back-phasing in TPT of re-allocated trade, provided he has not been back-phased earlier on grounds of poor academic performance during JBPT or TPT in his original trade.

(iii) In case of a re-mustered trade trainee, one back-phasing is permitted. On second failure in TET/MCKT/ECKT re-mustered trainee is to be routed back to his parent Unit.

(d) xxxxx

(e) **Re-allocation of Trade.** In IPT, re-allocation of trade is permitted only on medical grounds. All cases of re-allocation of trade are to be decided by HQ TC subject to the resultant strength in the re-allocated trade not exceeding 5% of allotted vacancy for the intake.

(f) **Criteria for Re-allocation.** A trainee is to be recommended for re-allocation of trade, if the ab-initio trainee becomes unfit for the present trade on medical grounds and is declared suitable for re-allocation to other trade by appropriate medical authority."

12. It is not in dispute that the Applicant was enrolled in the Air Force after passing written, physical and medical tests and he also passed Basic Air Force training. However, on perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that on joining the Air Force, the Applicant initially failed in Diagnostic Test which was conducted at ATS, Belagavi. After passing the JBPT, he failed in Mid Term Test of Term-II (MTT-II) and, accordingly, he was issued letter of caution to improve his academic performance in upcoming examinations and additional classes were also provided to him. However, despite letter of caution and additional classes provided to him for improving his academic performance, the Applicant failed in Mid Course Knowledge Test (MCKT) in Part I and Part II. Since the Applicant had failed in more than one part of MCKT, in terms of Para 9 (a) of TCASI/Part-II/Airmen Training/02/20 and Paragraph 31 of AFO 14/2015, he was not eligible for re-examination. Accordingly, in terms of Para 7 and 12 of TCASI/Part-II/Airmen Training/02/20, Station Review Board (SRB) was conducted on 18.02.2020 and on approval of the SRB, he was back-phased to next junior entry of the same trade and same term (intake 01/20 Term-II) which was scheduled to commence wefr 26.10.2020 and his father was also informed about his poor academic performance. During the intervening period (18.08.2020 to 25.10.2020), he was not involved in any active training and, hence, was detailed for escort duty where he had sufficient time to prepare for academic studies. Despite getting sufficient time and adequate study time, the Applicant again failed in MCKT at the end of Term-II. Since only one time back-phasing is permitted in terms of aforesaid rules, the Applicant was not allowed for back-phasing again in terms of Para 31 (b) of AFO 14/2015. Further, as per Para 31(e) of TCASI/Part-II/Airmen Training/02/20, re-allocation of trade is permitted only on medical grounds, whereas in the present case, the Applicant was discharged from Service on grounds of poor academic performance. The Presiding Officer of the URB was one of the member of the SRB as per existing policy and we see no influence of the Commanding Officer of the Applicant on SRB and any bias towards the Applicant in the final decision of the SRB, as claimed by the Applicant. Therefore, the apprehension of the Applicant that CO, MTI could have influenced the proceedings of SRB is utterly baseless and fictitious. The training pattern and training material are same for all the trainees undergoing the Trade Phase Training. The Applicant had more than three months time after his back-phasing and was also provided sufficient time for studies. The pandemic situation and the training method was same for all the trainees. The Applicant was provided sufficient opportunity to improve, but he could not achieve the desired level of academic performance. Further, re-allocation of trade is not permitted, except on medical grounds, in terms of Para 31 (e) & (f) of AFO 14/2015. Needless to say, the standard of Air Force Fleet has to be maintained at high level to maintain the operational readiness mandated by the Constitution, and even a little technical mistake may lead to a serious human and material disaster.


13. The Authorities empowered to authorize discharge are mentioned in Rule 15 of Air Force Rules, 1969, the relevant extract of which reads as under:- सत्यमेव जयते <table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th>"Class</th> <th>Cause of Discharge</th> <th>Competent Authority to authorize discharge</th> <th>Special Instructions</th> </tr> <tr> <th>1</th> <th>2</th> <th>3</th> <th>4</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Persons enrolled under the Act who have not been attested</td> <td>(a) xxxxx<br/>(b) Unlikely to make an efficient airman<br/>(k) xxxxx</td> <td>Commanding Officer</td> <td>Applicable to airmen under-going training for airmen"</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

14. The issue of Retirement, Release or Discharge and Discharge Certificate are explained in Section 22 and 23 of Air Force Act, 1950 which reads as under:- "22. **Retirement, release or discharge** - Any person subject to this Act may be retired, released or discharged from the service by such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed.

यतो न्यायः ततो जयः

23. **Certificate on termination of service** - Every warrant officer, or enrolled person who is dismissed, removed, discharged, retired or released from the service shall be furnished by his commanding officer with a certificate, in the language which is the mother tongue of such person and also in the English language setting forth-

- (a) the authority terminating his service;

- (b) the cause for such termination; and

- (c) the full period of his service in the Air Force."

15. In the present case, the Applicant was discharged from Service by the Competent Authority, i.e., the Commanding Officer as prescribed in Rule 15 (2)(j) of Air Force Rules, 1969 and Rule 22 of Air Force Act, 1950. All due procedures have been followed by the Competent Authority before the Discharge of the Applicant from Air Force. The Applicant placed no Statutory provision on record which prohibits the authorities to discharge the personnel who cannot pass the mandatory written tests, nor is it desirable to retain such personnel in service. Therefore, we see no legal infirmity in Discharge of the Applicant from Service for not passing the trade tests.

16. In view of the aforesaid facts, We are of the considered view that the OA is devoid of merit on all counts and hence, Dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

सत्यमेव जयते

17. No order on costs.

Sd/-xxx

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

Ssy/-

Sd/-xxx

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)


यतो न्यायः ततो जयः