Ex LAC Rom Prabhu Sharma vs UOI & Others on 30 July 2026

O R D E R

30/7/2026

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA with the following prayers :- (a) That the communication dated 22/5/2024 and 10/7/2024 wherein the representation of the applicant was rejected on the ground that his reinstatement in the Indian Air Force is not feasible in the absence of any specific order regarding reinstatement of an individual by the Hon’ble AFT, Jaipur may kindly be quashed and set aside;

(b) By an appropriate order or direction, Order dated 03/11/2003 wherein the services of the applicant were terminated by Unit 2217 Sqn, Uttarlai, District Barmer, Rajasthan be quashed and set aside;

(c) Letter dated 16/10/2003 issued by the Air Officer Commanding in Chief, wherein the applicant’s services were terminated on the ground that he was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Additional District Judge, New Delhi, may kindly be quashed and set aside; (d) Any order denying reinstatement of the applicant be quashed and set aside; (e) The Respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits; (f) Respondents be directed to consider the representation filed by the applicant in accordance with the prevailing laws and precedents; (g) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the applicant ; and (h) The OA be allowed with costs.

(i) As an interim measure, the applicant has also prayed for granting stay on effect the operation of the communication dated 22/5/2024 and direct the Respondents to reinstate the applicant till the pendency of the Original Application.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 20/9/1991 and was assigned the trade of MF (E). Despite serving the organization with unwavering dedication and commendable service over the years, the applicant was abruptly served a letter dated 16/10/2003 by the Air Officer Commanding in Chief, wherein his services were terminated on the ground that he was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Additional District Judge, New Delhi, on 17/4/2003, Annexure A/3. In pursuance of the ibid letter, the services of the applicant were terminated by his parent unit, 2217 Sqn, Uttarlai, Barmer, Rajasthan as per Rule 12 of the Air Force Rules, 1969 and the provisions of AFO 291/77 and he became SOS

from the Air Force on 03/11/2003, Annexure A/4. Being aggrieved by this conviction, the applicant approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and vide its Order dated 24/4/2014, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to acquit the applicant of all the charges on the basis of which he was terminated, Annexure A/5. Thereafter, the applicant submitted a representation dated 18/6/2014, to the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Defence and the Chief of the Air Staff requesting them to reinstate the applicant, Annexure A/6. However, request of the applicant was rejected on the ground that Hon’ble High Court has acquitted the applicant while giving him benefit of doubt but no order of reinstatement has been directed by the Court. Therefore, there is no provision of reinstatement of the applicant in service without court order, Annexure R/7. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA praying for relief.

3. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement. They have submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Air Force on 20/9/1991. He was tried by DCM at Air Force Station, Tughlakabad on 09/10/2002 and subsequent days for illegal absence from service, ie absenting himself without leave for the period 08/7/2001 to 21/9/2001 and was awarded punishment to undergo detention for three months and to be reduced to the ranks. The said DCM was confirmed by the competent authority on 25/11/2002 and while confirming the finding and sentence of the court, remitted the unexpired portion of the detention. Thereafter, the applicant was convicted for 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 50,000/- by the Additional Session Judge, New Delhi vide Order dated 17/4/2003 for an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in Criminal Case No 18/2002. Subsequent to this conviction, the applicant was dismissed from service on 04/11/2003 in terms of Section 20 (3) of the Air Force Act, 1950, based on authority issued by South Western Air Command letter dated 16/10/2003. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 17/4/2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, the applicant filed a Criminal Appeal No 272/2003 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Hon’ble High Court vide its Order dated 24/4/2014 acquitted the applicant giving him benefit of doubt. Based on this acquittal by the Hon’ble High Court, the applicant had submitted a representation dated 18/6/2014 to the Secretary, Ministry

of Defence, Govt of India and the Chief of the Air Staff requesting for revoking the dismissal order of the applicant passed on the basis of his conviction under Section 376 IPC by the Additional Session Judge, New Delhi, vide Air HQ letter dated 03/3/2015, it was opined that since the sole and primary reason for the dismissal of the applicant was conviction and award of sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge, which has been set aside in the Appeal, he may be considered for reinstatement in service. The said representation was considered at the Air HQ (VB) and was rejected vide order dated 28/12/2015 on the ground that reinstatement of the applicant in service cannot be effected without an express order by the Court in that regard notwithstanding his acquittal. Based on the earlier OA No 17/2016 filed by the applicant before the Circuit Bench of this Tribunal at Jodhpur, this Tribunal vide Order dated 10/8/2023, directed the applicant to submit a fresh Representation to the Competent Authority with his grievances with liberty to file de novo, in case he was still aggrieved by the decision taken by the competent authority on the fresh representation. Pursuant to the ibid order, the applicant, vide his representation dated 15/5/2024 requested for his reinstatement in service. The competent authority, after examination of the facts and circumstances of the case of the applicant and since financial implications involved in it, referred case to PIFA, who opined that his reinstatement in Indian Air Force is not feasible in the absence of any specific order by the AFT regarding his reinstatement in the absence of any rule/guideline towards acquittal of the applicant due to benefit of doubt in criminal case. The said decision was conveyed to the applicant vide letter dated 22/5/2024, Annexure A/1 of the present OA. Respondents have further submitted that as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held in various cases that an acquittal based on the ‘benefit of doubt’ does not automatically entitle a dismissed employee to reinstatement and the reinstatement is purely granted in cases of “honourable (fully exonerated) acquittal”. In support of their arguments, the Respondents have placed reliance on the Judgments in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2023 SCC online SC 205, decided on 28/2/2023 as also in the case of Reserve Bank of India Vs Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541 and in RP Kapur Vs UOI (1964) 5 SCR 431, wherein it was held inter alia that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in

service. The acquittal has to be honourable. As such, the expression, “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted of blame”, “fully exonerate” are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, and The Hon’ble Apex court distinguished between these two types of acquittal :- (a) An “honourable acquittal” (or complete exoneration on the merits) will usually lead to reinstatement, especially if the dismissal was based solely on the criminal conviction itself.

(b) An “acquittal due to benefit of doubt”, lack of evidence, or technical grounds does not bind the employer to reinstate the individual.

Further, the applicant was enrolled in the Air Force on 20/9/1991 for a period of engagement of 20 years and the same expired on 30/9/2011. Having narrated the sequence of events leading to the dismissal of the applicant, the Respondents have prayed for dismissing this OA, being devoid of merit. After conclusion of the final hearing, the counsel for the applicant has also made Written Submissions in the matter.

4. We have heard the Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record threadbare. The issue that is to be deliberated upon is whether the applicant is entitled for grant of relief as prayed for in the OA.

5. It is apparent from the material on record that the applicant was enrolled in the Air Force on 20/9/1991 for the stated objective of serving the Air Force and the Nation by being a disciplined and morally upright soldier expected to uphold the core values of the organization, ie, duty, honour and Nation. However, during his service span, the applicant turned out to be an indisciplined one. He was tried by District Court Martial in the year 2002 due to his willful absent without leave for a period of more than two months wef 08/7/2001 to 21/9/2001. For this act of misdemeanour, the applicant was awarded punishment of three months’ RI and to be reduced to the ranks. The Confirming Authority, while confirming the finding and sentence of the Court on 25/11/2002, remitted the unexpired portion of the detention. Close on the

heels of this act of willful absence without leave onthe part of the applicant, he was tried under IPC Section 376 in Criminal Case No 18/2002 by the trial court – Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, vide its Order dated 17/4/2003, awarded ten years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs 50,000/-. Subsequent to this conviction, the applicant was dismissed from Air Force service on 04/11/2003 in terms of Section 20(3) of the Air Force Act, 1950, as approved by the competent authority. Based on the Appeal No 272/2003 filed by the applicant before the Hon’ble High Court of New Delhi against his conviction, the Hon’ble High Court vide Order dated 24/4/2014, acquitted the applicant giving him “Benefit of Doubt”. Thereafter, the representation submitted by the applicant for his reinstatement based on the acquittal granted by the Hon’ble High Court, the issue was deliberated upon by the competent authority and turned down the plea of the applicant. Further, based on the earlier OA No 17/2016 filed by the applicant before this Tribunal, which was disposed off by this Tribunal vide Order dated 10/8/2023, the applicant was directed to submit a fresh representation before the competent authority for redressal of his grievance. The representation submitted by the applicant based on our earlier order was also rejected by the competent authority.

6. With regard to dismissal of personnel subject to Air Force Act, 1950, the relevant Clause of Section 20 reads as follows :- “20. Dismissal, removal or reduction by [Chief of the Air Staff] and other officers.—

(1) 1[Chief of the Air Staff] may dismiss or remove from the service any person subject to this Act other than an officer.

(2) 1[Chief of the Air Staff] may reduce to a lower grade or rank or the ranks, any warrant officer or any non-commissioned officer.

(3) An officer having power not less than an air officer in charge of a command or equivalent commander or any prescribed officer may dismiss or remove from the service any person serving under his command other than an officer or a warrant officer”.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its Order dated 02/9/2022 in the case of The State of Rajasthan & Ors Vs Phool Singh, Civil Appeal No 5930 of 2022

(arising out of SLP (C) No 11195 of 2021), has distinguished between the ‘honouorable acquittal’ and the acquittal due to a ‘benefit of doubt’. The relevant extract of Para 13 & 14 of the ibid Order is reproduced below :-

13. In the case at hand, respondent was convicted by the Trial Court and in appeal the Appellate Court only acquitted him by giving him a “benefit of doubt”. The operative part of order dated 26.11.1994 of the Appellate Authority reads as under: “Hence, on the basis of aforesaid analysis the present appeal on behalf of the appellant accused against the respondent/ prosecution is allowed and the judgment and sentence dated 21.3.94 passed by the Subordinate Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate Dholpur is hereby quashed and the above appellant/accused Phool Singh is acquitted for the charge u/s 392 IPC & u/s 3/25 of Arms Act by giving benefit of doubt.”

14. Therefore, in the present case the acquittal of the respondent is not an honourable acquittal, but an acquittal given due to a “benefit of doubt”. Under these circumstances and in view of the position of law as stated above, this appeal is allowed and the order dated 29.01.2014 of the learned Single Judge and the order dated 09.09.2020 of the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench are hereby set aside”.

8. It is apparent from the foregoing that the Applicant was dismissed from Air Force service wef 04/11/2003 due to his conviction under Section 376, IPC in a criminal case No 18/2002 as decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, vide its Order dated 17/4/2003. Based on the Appeal of the applicant, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, vide its Order dated 24/4/2014, ie, after 11 years from the date of his dismissal from service, acquitted the applicant giving him benefit of doubt. There is also no gainsaying the fact that the applicant was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years coupled with a penalty of Rs 50,000/- for a heinous crime of committing rape under the Section 376 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code. Thus, the applicant can in no way exculpate himself from the offence he had committed as it was a case of moral turpitude, that too, particularly he being a trained soldier expected to uphold probity at all times. Since he was acquitted merely on the ground of giving him the benefit of doubt by the Hon’ble High Court, the case of the applicant cannot be included in the “Right to be Forgotten”

category. Also, this aspect could have been factored in while a decision was taken by the Respondents on the representation submitted by the Applicant, post his acquittal by the Hon’ble High Court. In view of this and since the applicant was acquitted merely giving him benefit of doubt and was not honourably acquitted of all the charges levelled against him by the learned trial Court, we find no merit on the plea of the applicant for his reinstatement in service in accordance with Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra).

9. In-fine, the prayer of the applicant for his reinstatement in service and related consequential benefits is rejected being devoid of merit and, hence, the OA is dismissed. No order on costs.

10. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/