Ex LAC Satyasheel Singh (AF) vs UOI & Others on 19 December 2025

O R D E R

19/12/2025

1. Under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA (Appeal) praying for directing the Respondents to quash and set aside the Dismissal Order dated 02/9/2020 passed by the DCM against the applicant and convert the dismissal into discharge and deemed to be discharged from service wef 02/9/2020. He has also prayed for condonation of shortfall of service for the purpose of retiral benefits as per his service more than 16 years also to grant any other relief appropriate to the facts and circumstances of the case as deemed fit and proper.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Air Force from 01 ASC Ambala on 12/1/2004 when he was only 19 years old. After completion of training, he was posted to Air Force Station, Gwalior,

in a premier Fighter Squadron from 2005 to 2010. Thereafter, the applicant was posted to Air Force Station, Purnea and later to Mirage Centre Repair and Servicing Section (CR & SS) at Air Force Station Maharajpura, Gwalior. Before his dismissal from service, the applicant was posted to 33 Wing Air Armoury wef 21/5/2018. In 2010, the applicant realised that due to his family problems, he will not be able to continue in service. Also, it was his principle to not betray his Organisation which was providing him bread and butter.He did not want to perform his duties half heartedly or with negligence, contempt and aversion. Therefore, when he realised that he would not be able to do justice to the service and to the organisation, he applied for discharge from service after completion of six years of service. Later, the applicant withdrew his application for discharge from service when he was counselled by his Section Commander and advised by other servicemen to reconsider his decision. On 01/5/2003, the applicant married a girl of his choice, against the wishes of his parents, though he could not get the marriage POR done owing to domestic issues pertaining to difference with his parents. Out of this wedlock, the applicant has one daughter – Ahanna Singh - aged five years. Despite the parental objection, the applicant left no stone unturned to maintain a stable relationship with his parents and everything was running smoothly until 2017, when some property dispute occurred and the applicant had to rush to his parents. The applicant was appalled to discover that his parents were not ready to grant him the status of a ‘legal heir’. From 2018 onwards the situation got only worse which caused him mental and emotional tension, besides his professional life. He also availed some leave wef 27/6/2019 to 14/7/2019 to settle the things amicably. Due to immense pressure, the applicant absented himself from service for one yearwef 15/7/2019 to 14/7/2020 after which he decided that it is a sine-qua-non to end his relationship with service formally. Therefore, the applicant surrendered himself at the Main Guard Room, Air ForceStation, Jamnagar, on 14/7/2020 and the applicant was kept in close arrest from 31/7/2020. A Court of Inquiry was ordered by the AOC-in-C, South Western Air Command on 21/8/2020 and the Judge Advocate General straightaway arraigned the applicant even without giving him an opportunity to raise Special Plea to the jurisdiction of Rule 59 of the Air Force Rules, 1969. Applicant was also not guided properly by the Defending Officer about his right to raise the plea. The applicant was arraigned on two charges and he pleaded

‘Guilty’ on all these charges. The record of the DCM proceedings reveal that the Court thereafter explained the applicant the general effect, implications of his ‘Plea to Guilty’ to the charges and the difference in procedure which will be made by that plea. The applicant submitted a written application for Plea in Mitigation of Punishment on 01/9/2020, on the ground that prevailing domestic issues due to which he was unable to maintain balance between the service to the organisation and his personal life, which was not duly considered by the Respondents. Thereafter, the DCM found the applicant ‘Guilty’ on all two charges and gave its findings with reasons in support of the same findings and the applicant was sentence with, “to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three month; (ii) to be dismissed from service and (iii) to be reduced to ranks”, Annexure A/3. The applicant, vide his Mercy Petition dated 02/9/2020 under Section 161 of the Air Force Act, requested the Confirming Authority that he had completed 15 years and 175 days of service by deducting the absence period and they should take a lenient view of his unintentional failures, at a time when his wife was expecting their second child and no one else was at home to take care of his wife at her time of need. However, the Respondents failed to take into consideration the grounds in his mercy petition. The findings and punishment was considered by the Confirming Authority together with the mercy petition of the applicant vide Order dated 06/10/2020 and the findings and sentence were subsequently confirmed by the AOC-in-C. The applicant further submits that the punishment awarded to him was highly disproportionate, keeping in view his length of service and the said punishment adversely affected his and his family’s livelihood and he has no other efficacious alternative remedy but to approach this Hon’ble Tribunal under the facts and circumstances mentioned herein. With regard to the contention of the applicant that the punishments awarded to him were disproportionate and severe and unsympathetic, the applicant has placed reliance on the Judgment, amongst others, passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Director General RPF and Ors Vs Ch Sai Babu, (2003) 4 SCC 331, wherein it was held that the, “normally punishment imposed by disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by high court or tribunal except in appropriate case that too only after reaching a conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant facts including nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty

imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of and the discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment in which the concerned delinquent person works”. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA praying for relief.

3. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement. The Respondents at first have raised preliminary objection on the ground that the OA (Appeal)was filed by the applicant on 22/7/2021 against the Impugned Order of sentence dated 02/9/2020 passed by District Court Martial (DCM) and confirmed on 06/10/2020 by the confirming authority. The limitation for filing the application is six months from the date of Order under Section 22 of the AFT Act 2007. In the instant case, the cause of action/impugned order was dated 06/10/2020 and limitation for filing Appeal/Application was upto 06/4/2021 whereas it was filed on 22/7/2021, ie, after a lapse of 106 days. The office of the Hon’ble Tribunal may not have raised the objection of limitation but the appeal is barred by law of limitation and in absence of application under Section 22 (2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Appeal/Application is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. Moreover, the applicant has not availed the alternative remedy available to him under Section 161

(2) of the Air Force Act, 1950. Therefore, the OA Appeal is liable to be dismissed on that ground of availability of alternate remedy. The Respondents have further submitted that the applicant, while serving at 33 Wing Air Force was granted leave from 27/6/2019 to 12/7/2019 with permission to suffix 13 and 14/7/2019. However, he did not return on 15/7/2019. Thereafter, upon receipt of absentee report, ie, IAFF (P) 15 dated 15/7/2019 from his Section, a K Broadcast Signal No PS/127 dated 16/7/2019 for his absent without leave (AWL) was sent to all Air Force Units. On 22/7/2019, report of absentee, IAFF (P) 4 was raised in respect of the appellant/applicant and was forwarded to all concerned vide letter No 33W/145/1/P1 dated 22/7/2019. Since the applicant remained absent, a Court of Inquiry under Section 107 of the Air Force Act, 1950 was assembled and he was declared ‘deemed deserter’ wef 15/7/2019 and a declaration in this regard was annotated in Court Martial Book, ie, IAFF P-29. The applicant surrendered himself on 14/7/2020, ie after one year. Prior to this absent without leave, the applicant had also remained AWL

for 14 days wef 03/6/2019 to 17/6/2019. He has not disputed the periods of absence/overstayal and he had admitted that he had intentionally absented himself without leave and stayed at home during such long absence of one year as also not advanced any valid ground for his absence. Considering the prolonged period of overstayal/absent without leave for more a year, without any reasonable ground, the intention of the applicant to desert the service is clearly discernible. Also, during the span of his more than 16 years of service, the conduct sheet of the applicant reveals that he had incurred six Red Ink entry Punishments mainly related to absence without leave and disobedience. Further, he has also been awarded ‘Displeasure’ by the AOC-in-C, CAC on 31/8/2016 due to his misconduct. Accordingly, DCM was assembled on 31/8/2020 and the applicant was arraigned on two charges – First; charge was under Section 38 (1), ie, deserting the service and the second charge under Section 39 (a),ie, Absent without leave of the Air Force Act 1950. Before the DCM, the applicant pleaded ‘Guilty’ to both the charges voluntarily. Since the applicant had pleaded guilty to the charges, the burden of proving the charge by the prosecution stand discharged. The Court complied with the provisions laid down in Rule 62 (3) of the Air Force Rules and the Court ascertained from the applicant that he is pleading guilty to the charges voluntarily and the Summary of Evidence was read in the court. Thereafter, the applicant submitted the plea in mitigation of punishment and the court regularly drew the attention of the applicant while reading the Summary of Evidence and from the plea of mitigation wherein he could have taken the facts as his probable line of defence and the applicant adhered to his plea of guilty to the charges. Thus the Court was satisfied that the applicant had pleaded guilty to the charges voluntarily, unconditionally, without any threat, coercion, inducement or promise from anyone to do so and same was also confirmed by the Defending Officer. The court heard all the evidences recorded in the Summary of Evidence and drew the attention of the applicant where it felt that particular fact could have been taken as probable line of defence and advised him to change of plea of guilty, but the applicant did not change his plea of guilty to both the charges which inter alia implied that the applicant was aware of the charges of offence/misconduct against him and he voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charges. He was also duly assisted by legally qualified defending officer throughout the court martial proceedings. Moreover, the

defending officer of the applicant had submitted that the applicant was firm on his plea of guilty with respect of both the charges and did not wish to change his plea of guilty. He also submitted that the submission in the ‘plea of mitigation’ is to seek the leniency of the court while deciding his fate (punishment). Also, there is no material on record that the applicant overstayed the leave with any valid reason or other causes which was beyond his control. The DCM considered the whole evidence before it and passed reasoned findings in this case, Annexure A/3. The DCM duly considered the case including the plea in mitigation submitted by the applicant and awarded the punishment – (i) to suffer RI for three months, (ii) to be dismissed from service, and (iii) to be reduced to Ranks. The applicant had submitted the pre- confirmation petition under Section 161 (1) of the Air Force Act 1950 before the confirming authority, ie, AOC-in-C, HQ South Western Air Command. The confirming authority duly considered his pre confirmation petition and in his magnanimity remitted one month of rigorous imprisonment awarded to him and the same has been conveyed to the applicant. In view of the submissions made by the Respondents, the Respondents have prayed for dismissing the OA (Appeal).

4. During the final hearing held on 03/12/2025, Counsel for the applicant, in support of her arguments, have placed on record the copies of the following judgments :- (a) Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgmentsdated 17/1/2017 in the case of S Muthu Kumaran Vs UOI & Ors, Civil Appeal No 352 of 2017 (arising out of Diary No 20062 of 2016).

(b) Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna judgment dated 12/12/2022 in the caseof Vidya Baridh Tiwari, S/o Sri Raghbir Prasad Tiwari Vs UOI & Ors, in civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 7585 of 1999.

5. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material including the District Court Martial proceedings placed on record by the Respondents.

6. It is evident that the applicant was enrolled in the Air Force on 12/1/2004 and was promoted to the rank of Corporal. The applicant being a well trained Corporal in the Air Force and while posted at 33 Wing Air Force, had first time defied the discipline and ethos of the service and as if to test the waters and remained Absent without leave for 14 days wef 03/6/2019 to 17/6/2019. Close on the heels of this absence without leave for 14 days apparently, the Respondents had let off the applicant for this indisciplined behaviour, the applicant remained on OSL for about a year by not rejoining duty on 15/7/2019 on culmination of the leave granted to him for the period from 27/6/2019 to 12/7/2019 with permission to suffix 13 and 14/7/2019. Since the applicant did not rejoin on time, he was declared a deserter wef 15/7/2019. However, he surrendered himself on 14/7/2020, ie, after almost a year of his remaining OSL without any valid reasons. Accordingly, as is mandated as per Air Force Rules, the applicant was tried by District Court Martial and after taking into consideration all the aspects found the applicant guilty of two charges, ie, deserting the Air Force service and Absent Without Leave under Sections 38 (1) and 39 (a) respectively of Air Force Act 1950. During the trial proceedings, the applicant accepted his guilt and pleaded guilty for the charges and offered no worthwhile reasons/grounds for his prolonged illegal absence of one year. The service profile of the applicant also speaks of his indisciplined behaviour of having earned Six Red Ink Entry Punishments during his span of service because of his absence without leave and disobedience as also getting ‘Displeasure’ awarded by the AOC-in-C, Central Air Command on 31/8/2016 due to his misconduct. The District Court Martial held on 31/8/2020 found the applicant guilty of charges of remaining on OSL for a year and he was awarded the punishments of, “(i) to suffer RI for three months, (ii) to be dismissed from service and (iii) to be reduced to the Ranks”. Based on the pre-confirmation petition filed by the applicant under Section 161 (1) of the Air Force Act 1950, the confirming authority, ie, the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, South Western Air Command remitted to one month’s rigorous imprisonment from the three months’ RI awarded to him by the duly constituted DCM, while maintaining the other two punishments.

7. It is clear from the foregoing that the applicant was enrolled in the Air Force of his own volition on 12/1/2004 with the stated objective of serving the Air Force and the Nation. During hisspan of service, the applicant was promoted to the rank of Corporal. However, despite being a trained soldier, expected to follow the Unit ethos and discipline, the applicant turned out to be an indisciplined soldier, in that, the applicant had been awarded Six Red Ink Entry Punishments and, moreover, he was also awarded ‘Displeasure’ by the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Central Air Command, due to his misconduct, which proves that the applicant was a habitual offender and gave a toss to the disciplined way of service and life expected from him. As if all these misdemeanours of the applicant were not enough, the applicant audaciously remained on overstayal of leave wef 15/7/2019 to 14/7/2020 by not rejoining duty on culmination of leave granted to him from 27/6/2019 to 12/7/2019 with suffix as 13 & 14/7/2019 at his pleasure nor did he inform his unit authorities about his absence from duty and surrendered on 14/7/2020 after a year of his remaining on OSL, resulting him to be declared as a Deserter wef 15/7/2019 by Air Force authorities. In fact, the Applicant had voluntarily joined Air Force to serve the Nation, but contrary to the Oath administered by him, he has clearly belied the trust reposed upon him to remain disciplined while discharging his military duty. This Tribunal is fully cognizant of the fact that the object of appropriate punishment to military personnel is not merely to inflict punishment, but also to ensure that undue leniency does not set a bad precedent for others to emulate, and jeopardise the overall discipline and operational well being of a fighting service Unit. In the instant case, the applicant wilfully remained overstayal of Leave for one year at a stretch, making it clear that he had no enthusiasm or inclination of serving the Air Force as a responsible airman. Absence of one year by a member of the Armed Forces cannot be condoned. Showing leniency or misplaced sympathy to such soldiers will be at the very peril of the security of the disciplined Armed Forces in particular and the Nation in general as the countrymen bestow great faith and trust in the institution of Services as a role model which cannot be diluted at any cost and, thus, no leniency can be bestowed on such individuals. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the Respondents have carried out the action against the applicant in adherence with the procedure laid down and he was rightly dismissed from service in terms of prevailing

rules and policies and under the circumstances, we find no illegality or infirmity in the action taken by the Respondents in dismissing the applicant warranting our interference. Also, contrary to the contention of the counsel for the applicant that the punishment awarded to the applicant was disproportionate to the offence committed by the applicant, we find that despite award ofsix Red Ink Entry Punishments to him for various offences and award of ‘Displeasure’ by the AOC-in-C, Central Air Command, the applicant was acutely callous in his behaviour towards military discipline and ethos and taken the service as his fiefdom, apparently owing to lesser punishment having been awarded to him and tolerance shown to the applicant by the Respondents in the past despite repeated offences committed by him. The plea, therefore, of the applicant for quashing and setting aside the DCM proceedings dated 02/9/2020 and convert his dismissal into discharge as also condonation of shortfall of service for grant of retiral benefits for more than 16 years with all consequential benefits has no merit and is rejected.

8. We have perused the Judgments/ Orders placed on record by the Counsel for the Applicant in support of his case. These Judgment and Orders are quite distinctive in that in the case of S Muthu Kumaran Vs UOI & Ors, the Hon’ble Apex Court converted the dismissal into discharge of the petitioner therein taking into consideration the past clean state of the service record of the applicant except the present offence of his involvement of fraudulent enrolment racket and obtaining illegal gratification while posted at a Recruiting Office. It is also prudent to observe in the Judgment that by converting the dismissal into discharge, the petitioner had not been granted any material benefits of reinstatement in service or other pensionary benefits by the Hon’ble Apex Court. With regard to reliance placed by the counsel for the applicant on the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in the case of VidyaBaridh Tiwari in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 7585 of 1999, the Hon’ble High Court has only remitted the case back to the Respondents concerned to consider the issue of proportionality of the punishment and pass order afresh taking note of the law stated therein in the Order. On the other hand, it is clear that the applicant herein was doing duty ‘at will, considering it as his fiefdom’ by remaining absent as and when desired by him.

9. The case of the Applicant also stands squarely covered by Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI &Ors Vs Ex Sep/Ash Kulbeer Singh, in Civil Appeal No 3095 of 2017, decided on 11/3/2019 as also in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Manoj Deswal&Ors, in Civil Appeal No 5015 of 2008, decided on 28/10/2015. In yet another judgment dated 28/7/2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad Vs UOI & Ors, Civil Appeal No 246 of 2017, in which it is held that :- “one must be mindful of the fact that discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of service. Therefore, he did not deserve any leniency by infliction of a punishment lesser than that which has been awarded to him. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed as meritless, while upholding the impugned judgment. The parties are left to bear their own costs”.

10. The relevant extract of Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI &Ors Vs Ex Sep/AshKulbeerSingh (supra), reads as follows :- “….We are clearly of the view that the Armed Forces Tribunal was in error in coming to the conclusion that the punishment which was imposed was harsh. The only basis for the finding was that the respondent had put in twelve years of service. This was all the more a reason why any responsible member of the Armed Force should not have absented from service without permission. The Tribunal clearly misdirected itself in law in coming to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal from service was harsh and disproportionate. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Armed Forces Tribunal dated 21 August 2015. In consequence, OA 483 of 20126 filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs”.

11. In yet another judgment dated 02/9/2019 in Civil Appeal No 1857 of 2018 in the case of Sep Satgur Singh Vs UOI &Ors, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held the view that :- “8) In reply to the show-cause notice, the appellant has not given any explanation of his absence from duty on seven occasions. He has been punished on each occasion

for rigorous imprisonment ranging from 2 days to 28 days. A Member of the Armed Forces cannot take his duty lightly and abstain from duty at his will. Since the absence of duty was on several different occasions for which he was imposed punishment of imprisonment, therefore, the order of discharge cannot be said to be unjustified. The Commanding Officer has recorded that the appellant is a habitual offender. Such fact is supported by absence of the appellant from duty on seven occasions.

9) In view thereof, we do not find any error in the order of discharge of the appellant. Appeal is dismissed”.

12. In-fine, we do not find merit in any of the pleas of the applicant and hence, this OA (Appeal) is dismissed.

13. No order on costs.

14. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR

S/04

OA (A) 02/2021

Service No 779386F Ex LAC Satyasheel Singh, S/o Shri Arun Kumar Singh, Resident of Deendayal Sadan, Rainbow Colony, Opposite MG ITI, Near Railway Station, Bundi, Rajasthan – 323 001

…. Applicant

Versus

1. UOI, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi – 110 011

2. Chief of the Air Staff, Air HQ (Vayu Bhawan), Rafi Marg, New Delhi – 110 006

3. AOC-in-C, South Western Air Command, IAF, Vayu Shakti Nagar, Gandhinagar – 382 042

4. Air Officer Commanding, AFRO, Subroto Park, New Delhi – 110 010

…. Respondents

For Applicant

: Ms. Anjali Minocha, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Pyare Lal, Senior Panel Counsel

CORAM:

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

O R D E R

19/12/2025

After pronouncement of the Order, Counsel for the Applicant has made an oral prayer for grant of Leave to Appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Since we do not find any substantial question of law of general public importance involved in the matter warranting grant of Leave to Appeal, the oral prayer for grant of Leave to Appeal is rejected.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-