Jitender vs Union of India on 29 October 2026

ORDER

JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL, MEMBER (J),

The appellant was serving in the Indian Air Force as a Sergeant. He had been enrolled on 28.03.2007.

2. Sometime in the year 2022, the authorities concerned came to know that certain air warriors were running a racket for recruitment of Air Force personnel and for issuing fake LTC receipts. One Sergeant Manoj allegedly revealed that the appellant was also involved. A Court of Inquiry dated 15.11.2022 was, thus, convened. Based on the findings of the said Court of Inquiry (COI), a show cause notice dated 28.03.2023 was issued to the appellant to show cause why he should not be dismissed or removed from service in terms of Section 20(3) of the Air Force Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 18(1) of the Air Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Reply dated 13.04.2023 was submitted by the appellant in which it was stated that the appellant had an unblemished record and that he was compelled to record a confession. The confession was given after undergoing torture for four days and to safeguard the interest of the family. The true facts have been narrated before the COI, yet, he was found to be blameworthy. No evidence regarding the allegations against the appellant was available on record. Soft copy of an Admit Card of a candidate was sent to him by Sergeant Manoj for forwarding the same to a coaching centre for better coaching on account of being friendly with the coaching centre personnel and that the photograph in uniform found in the phone memory, was never misused. The reply was not found satisfactory and vide order dated 04.07.2023, the appellant was removed from service. The aforestated order was challenged by way of appeal but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2023.

3. The present OA (Appeal) challenges both the aforestated orders.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was involved in any money transaction. The appellant was only guilty of sending an Admit Card of one known person to the coaching centre through WhatsApp. The appellant had sent the Admit Card only as a friend and for the interest of better coaching. Thus, he could not have been connected with the racket of fake recruitment. Further, it has been submitted that the appellant had served for more than 15 years on the date he was removed from service. The Administrative removal was disproportionate to the offence alleged. Finally, it has been submitted that apart from the confession made by the appellant, there is no evidence linking the appellant with the allegations made against him. The confession could not have been relied upon as it was obtained through the course of investigation and under duress. The confession was subsequently retracted by the appellant and, thus, returning a finding of guilt based upon the same was illegal.

5. We are considering each submission independently.

6. The first submission is regarding non-availability of any evidence linking the appellant with any money transaction. This argument can be linked with the final submission of retraction of confession and the illegality in relying upon the same. It is rejected in view of Exhibit-A with the COI proceedings. The same has been referred to in the order dated 04.07.2023. It is the confession of co-accused Sergeant Manoj Kumar, according to which, he has given details regarding the involvement of the appellant and payment of money. The argument is, thus, rejected because learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has failed to refer to the contents of the said Exhibit to show that the finding based thereupon was perverse.

7. Next, we take up the argument pertaining to sending an Admit Card to a coaching centre through WhatsApp only for the purpose of helping a candidate to receive better coaching. The submission is factually incorrect. The impugned order records that a large number of Admit Cards were available in the smartphone of the appellant. The phrase ‘Admit Card’ is used only with reference to a record issued to a candidate to enable him to enter an examination hall. Thus, the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel is patently incorrect. Had the intention only been to assist a candidate to get better coaching, his details could have been conveyed through a phone call also. Assuming that the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the appellant forwarded only one Admit Card to the coaching centre is correct, the fact by itself establishes the guilt of the appellant.

8. The appellant has been punished with removal from service for offence of aiding enrolment in the Air Force by illegal means. The said punishment cannot be held to be disproportionate. Thus, the length of service is immaterial. This argument is also rejected.

9. In view of the above, no interference is called for. The OA (appeal) is dismissed.

(Lt Gen (Dr) Ranbir Singh)

(Justice Sudhir Mittal) Member (A)

Member (J)

29th Oct, 2026 AKB

√ REPORTABLE OR NOT