http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CORPORAL A.K. BAKSHI & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/02/1996

BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) NANAVATI G.T. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1368            1996 SCC  (3)  65  JT 1996 (3)   310        1996 SCALE  (2)394

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T S.C. AGRAWAL, J. :      The question  which falls  for consideration  in  these appeals is  whether an  order for  discharge from the Indian Air Force  in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Policy  for  Discharge  of  Habitual  Offenders  under  Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of  the Air Force Rules, 1969, as prescribed in the Policy  Directive dated  August 14,  1984,  [hereinafter referred to  as  ‘the  Policy  for  Discharge’]  amounts  to removal by  way of  punishment falling  under Rule 18 of the Air Force  Rules, 1969  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘the Rules’).      The Air  Force Act,  1950 (hereinafter  referred to  as ‘the Act’),  in Chapter  IV, makes provisions for conditions of service  of every  person subject  to the Act. Section 18 prescribes that  every person  subject to the Act shall hold office during  the pleasure  of the  President.  Section  19 empowers the  Central Government  to dismiss  or remove from service any  person subject  to the  Act. The  said power is subject to  the provisions  of the  Act and  the  rules  and regulations made thereunder. Section 20 deals with the power of the  Chief of  the Air  Staff and  other officers  in the matter of dismissal, removal or reduction of persons subject to the  Act. Section 22 lays down that any person subject to the Act  may be  retired, released  or discharged  from  the service by  such authority  and in  such manner  as  may  be prescribed. Sub-section  (1) of  Section 189  confers on the Central Government  the power  to make rules for the purpose of carrying  into effect  the provisions  of the Act. Clause (a) of  sub-section (2) of Section 189 authorises the making of rules  to provide for the removal, retirement, release or discharge from the service of persons subject to the Act. In exercise of  the power  conferred by Section 189 the Central Government has  framed the  Rules.  Rule  15  specifies  the authorities who  are competent  to authorise  discharge from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

service of  persons subject  to the  Act for  the  specified causes and  also the manner in which the said power is to be exercised. Rule 15 reads as under :      "15.   Authorities   empowered   to      authorise discharge.-      (1)  Each   of    the   authorities      specified      in column  3 of  the      Table below  shall be the authority      competent  in  respect  of  persons      subject to  the  Act  specified  in      column 1  thereof  for  the  causes      specified in  column 2  and in  the      manner specified  in column  4,  to      discharge  such  persons  from  the      service.      (2)  Any power  conferred  by  this      rule  on   any  of   the  aforesaid      authorities may  also be  exercised      by any  other authority superior to      it.                            TABLE ----------------------------------------------------------- Class     Cause of        Competent    Special Instruct-           discharge   to  authority     ions                           authorise ------------------------------------------------------------ Persons   (a)   x    x     x    x    x    x    x    x enrolled under the (b)   x    x     x    x    x    x    x    x Act who have been (c)   x    x     x    x    x    x    x    x arrested.           (d)   x    x     x    x    x    x    x    x           (e)   x    x     x    x    x    x    x    x           (f)   x    x     x    x    x    x    x    x           (g) His services               no longer               required.-           (i)  x     x     x    x    x    x    x    x           (ii) Unsuitable   Air Officer     -                for reten-   i/c                tion the     Administration                Air Force. -----------------------------------------------------------" Rule 16  deals with dismissal or removal of officers for for misconduct and  prescribes the  procedure to  be followed in that regard.  Rule 17  deals with  removal from  service  of officer on  grounds that  he is  unfit  to  be  retained  in service due  to inefficiency,  physical disability  or other ground other  than misconduct.  Rule 18 deals with dismissal or removal  of a  person subject  to the  Act other  than an officer.      A project  study on  ‘absence without  leave’ (AWL)  of airmen  covering  the  period  1978  to  1983  made  by  the Institute of  Defence Management  brought out  the following salient  features   regarding  the   existence  of  habitual offenders among airmen :      "(a) There  is a specific hard core      hard core  group of  airmen in  the      Air Force  (about  1288  in  number      from  all  trades)  who  have  been      contributing     regularly      and      predominantly to the annual offence      statistics in  the Air  Force  year      after year.  Further  breakdown  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

    the group  based on  the number  of      punishments and  the  corresponding      number of  airmen in  each of these      sub-groups in as under :- ------------------------------------------------------------ Groups based on      No. of                 Progressive punishments on       Airmen                 Total record ------------------------------------------------------------ 11 and above              17                         17 10                         7                         17 9                         11                         35 8                         22                         57 7                         56                        113 6                         80                        193 5                        145                        338 4                        339                        677 3                        611                       1288 ------------------------------------------------------------      (b)  This group  of airmen  has not      been repeating  AWL  offences,  but      also other offences and      (c)  This group of airmen have been      a   strong    source   of   adverse      influence on the general discipline      of other airmen in the service.      Adverse Effects :      3.   The   main    adverse   effect      flowing  out   of  the   repetitive      indiscipline  perpetrated  by  this      group of habitual offenders were :      (a)  Serious adverse  effect on the      general  morale   and   discipline,      especially  on   the  young  airmen      joining  various   Units  from  the      training centers.      (b)  Unit level  administration  is      kept   pre-occupied    with   these      chronic     indiscipline      cases      impinging   on    time   which   is      otherwise required for constructive      activity.      (c)  Very often,  at some  stage or      the other,  airmen from  this group      are   found   to   commit   serious      offences not  only within  but also      outside  the   Air  Force,  thereby      tarnishing   the   image   of   the      service.      (d)  Invariably   many   of   these      airmen are  not performing  well in      their  trades   also.  Hence  their      overall contribution to the service      is negligible.      (e)  Some of  the  airmen  of  this      group have  been promoted  and have      attained the  ranks of SNCOs (Sgts,      and above).  Such SNCOs  are a very      poor example to others particularly      the younger airmen." Having regard  to the  existence of habitual offenders among the airmen  and the  adverse  effects  of  their  repetitive indiscipline of  habitual offenders  among the airmen on the general discipline  and administration  of  the  Indian  Air Force, the  Air Headquarters  decided to Say down the Policy

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

for Discharge prescribing the guidelines to deal firmly with such habitual  offenders.  In paragraph 4 of the said policy it was prescribed :      "Airmen who  meet any  one  of  the      following individual  criteria  are      to be treated as habitual offenders      and considered  for discharge under      Rule 15  (2)(g)(ii)  of  Air  Force      Rules, 1969 :-      (a)  Total  number   of  punishment      entries six  and  above  (including      Red and Black ink entries);      (b)  Four   Red    ink   punishment      entries;      (c)  Four punishment  entries  (Red      and Black ink entries included) for      repeated  commission   of  any  one      specific type  of offence  such  as      disobedience, insubordination, AWL,      breaking  out   of  camp,  offences      involving       alcohol,       mess      indiscipline,        use         of      abusive/threatening language, etc." The detailed actions and procedures which are required to be followed to  implement the Policy for Discharge are given in the Appendix  to the policy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Procedure for  Discharge’). By  paragraph 3 of the Procedure for Discharge  habitual  offenders  who  may  not  be  found suitable for  retention in  service are  initially placed in two  categories,  viz.,  (a)  habitual  offenders  who  have already crossed  the criteria  as laid  down vide  paragraph 4(a),  (b)  and  (c)  of  the  policy  guidelines,  and  (b) offenders who  are  on  the  threshold.  Under  paragraph  7 Units/Stations are  required to  order Boards of Officers to scrutinize the  service documents  (conduct sheets)  of  all airmen with  a view  to identity  and list  out the habitual offenders  and  potential  habitual  offenders  as  per  the criteria laid  down in  paragraph 4  (a), (b) and (c) of the policy guidelines. Copies of the proceedings of the Board of Officers  are  required  to  be  forwarded  to  the  Command Headquarters and Air Force Records. Under paragraph 9 airmen of both  categories are  to be  warned  in  writing  by  the Commanding Officer personally about the implication of their persisting in  acts of  indiscipline  and  they  are  to  be informed that  firstly, they are getting another opportunity to mend  themselves and  an addition  of another  punishment entry (either  Red or  Black) in their record will result in their discharge.  Under paragraph  11 conduct  sheet of  the airman is  required to  be reviewed  by the  Adjutant of the unit concerned  every time  an airman put on charge is found gully and  punished to  ascertain whether the offender falls in any  of the categories an, if so, it initiate appropriate action where  necessary. Under  paragraph 13  it is required that whenever  an airman  of the  above  two  categories  is awarded another  punishment, his  case is  to be immediately reported by  the Unit to the Command concerned. In paragraph 14 it is provided that all cases of the two categories, i.e, those who  have already  crossed the  criteria laid down for qualifying as  habitual offenders and those on the threshold of doing  the same,  reported to Command Headquarters either by the  initial Board of Officers of individually, are to be monitored by  the Command  Headquarters and  on  receipt  of intimation regarding  award of  another punishment  in  such cases the  Command Headquarters  are  to  issue  show  cause notice to  the individual,  By paragraph  15 it  is required

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

that all case of airmen who have been served with show cause notices are  to  be  individually  forwarded  with  all  the relevant    replies/details/documents/recommendations     to Directorates  of  PS  and  PA  at  AIR  Headquarter  at  the earliest. Paragraph  16 makes  provision for scrutinizing of the cases  by the  Directorate of  PS and for forwarding the same to  the Directorate  of PA  with their recommendations. Under paragraph  17, the Directorate of PA has to submit the cases to Air Officer Incharge Personnel for his approval and then to  intimate follow  up action  with Air  Force Records Officer.      Both the  respondents, namely, Corporal A.K. Bakshi and Corporal Sobhanan, had been punished for six offences and in accordance with  the  Procedure  for  Discharge  show  cause notices  were  issued  to  them  by  the  Group  Captain  of Headquarters Training  Command, IAF,  Bangalore, acting  for Air Officer  Commanding-in-Chief,  requiring  them  to  whom cause as  to why  for the  said acts  of  indiscipline  they should  not   be  discharged   from   service   under   Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of  the Rules  for  having  become  a  habitual offender liable  for discharge. They submitted their replies to  the  show  cause  notice.  After  considering  the  said replies, recommendation  for discharge was made and the said recommendation was  accepted by  the  Air  Officer-in-charge Personnel and thereafter the orders for their discharge were issued. Feeling  aggrieved by  the said orders of discharge, the respondents  filed writ  petitions (C.W.P.Nos.  12320 of 1990 and  5850 of 1990) in the High Court of Karnataka. Both the writ  petitions were  dismissed by  the  learned  single Judge  by   judgment  dated   January  3,   1992.  The  said respondents filed writ appeals (W.A. Nos.141 of 1992 and 152 of 1992)  against the  said decision  of the  learned single Judge. The  said appeals  have been  allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment dated March 4, 1992. The High Court has rejected the contention urged on behalf of  the respondents  that the Policy for Discharge is liable to  be struck down for the reason that it permits the counting of offences for which the airmen were convicted and punished prior  to August 1984. The High Court has, however, held that  termination of the services of persons subject to the Act  could be  by way of punishment for causes involving their misconduct  or may  be for  causes not involving their misconduct,  i.e.,   not  by   way   of   punishment.   Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) makes provision for termination of services for causes not involving any misconduct and Rule 18 provides for termination by way of punishment for misconduct. It was held that discharge  under the  Policy for  Discharge amounts  to termination of  the services  of the  airman for  misconduct which led  to his  conviction and  award of punishment under the Act  falling under  Rule 18 of the Rules and is not mere discharge simpliciter  envisaged under  Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Rules.  The High  Court has  also found  that show cause notice was issued to the respondents by the Group Captain at the Command  Headquarters and  not by  the  air  Officer-in- charge who  is empowered to dismiss on account of misconduct which led to his conviction under Rule 18 of the Rules.      The question  which thus  arises for  consideration  in these appeals  is whether  an order  of discharge  passed in pursuance of  the Policy for Discharge cannot be regarded as discharge under  Rule 15(2)(g)(ii)  and has to be treated as termination of the service for misconduct falling under Rule 18. We  have already  set out  Rule 15(2)(g)(ii). We may now take note of Rule 18 which provides as under :      "18.  Dismissal  or  removal  of  a      person subject  to  the  Act  other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

    than an  officer.- Save  in a  case      where a  person subject  to the Act      other than  an officer is dismissed      or removed  from the service on the      ground of  conduct which had led to      his conviction  by a criminal court      or a  court martial, no such person      shall be dismissed or removed under      sub-section (1)  or sub-section (3)      of section  20 unless  he has  been      informed of  the particulars of the      cause of  action  against  him  and      allowed reasonable time to state in      writing any  reasons he may have to      urge  against   his  dismissal   or      removal from the service.      (2)  Notwithstanding       anything      contained in  sub-rule (1),  if  in      the   opinion    of   the   officer      competent to order the dismissal or      removal of  such person,  it is not      expedient or reasonably practicable      to comply  with the  provisions  of      sub-rule   (1),    he   may   after      certifying to  that  effect,  order      the dismissal or removal.      (3)  All  cases   of  dismissal  or      removal without  complying with the      procedure  prescribed  in  sub-rule      (1)  shall,   without   delay,   be      reported     to     the     Central      Government." A perusal  of the  said Rule  indicates that  it deals  with persons other than officers subject to the Act. Sub-rule (1) provides that  no such  person shall be dismissed or removed under sub-section  (1) or  sub-section  (3)  of  section  20 unless he  has been informed of the particulars of the cause of action  against him  and allowed reasonable time to state in writing  any reasons  he may  have to  urge  against  his dismissal or  removal from the service. This requirement his dismissal or  removal from  the service. This requirement is dispensed with  in cases  where a  person  is  dismissed  or removed from  service on  ground of conduct which has led to his conviction  by a  criminal court  or court  martial.  In other words,  except in cases where the dismissal or removal from service  is on  the ground  of conduct which has led to his conviction  by a  criminal court  or court martial, if a person subject  to the  Act is dismissed or removed from the service he  must be  informed about  the particulars  of the cause  of  action  against  him  and  must  be  afforded  an opportunity to  make his  submissions against  the  proposed dismissal  or  removal.  Sub-rule  (2)  dispenses  with  the requirement of  issuing notice  in cases  where  an  officer competent to  order the  dismissal  or  removal  is  of  the opinion that  it is  not expedient or reasonably practicable to comply  with the  provisions of  sub-rule (1) and is such cases he  may after  certifying to  that  effect  order  the dismissal or  removal. Sub-rule (3) lays down that all cases of  dismissal   or  removal   without  complying   with  the provisions of  sub-rule (1)  must be reported to the Central Government without delay.      According to  the High Court, the provisions of Rule 18 are attracted  in cases  where a person is discharged on the basis of  the Policy  for Discharge  for the reason that the action for  discharge has  been taken  on the  basis of  six

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

punishments which  have been  imposed on  him.  We  find  it difficult to  endorse this  view  of  the  High  Court.  The punishments referred  to in  the Policy  for  Discharge  are punishments that  have been imposed for misconduct under the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Policy for Discharge envisages  that in  cases where an airman has been awarded such punishments six times, he is to be treated as a habitual offender  and action for his discharge from service should be  taken against  him under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Rules. This action for discharge is not by way of punishment for the  misconducts for which he has already been punished. The basic  idea underlying  the Policy for Discharge is that recurring nature of punishments for misconduct imposed on an airman renders  him unsuitable  for further retention in the Air Force. Suitability for retention in the Air Force has to be determined  on  the  basis  of  record  of  service.  The punishments that have been imposed earlier being part of the record of  service have  to be  taken into consideration for the purpose  of deciding whether such person is suitable for retention  in   the  Air   Force.  The   discharge  in  such circumstances is,  therefore, discharge  falling under  Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) and  it cannot  be held  to be  termination  of service by  way of  punishment for  misconduct falling under Rule 18  of the  Rules. We  are, therefore,  unable to agree with the  High Court  that termination  of services  on  the basis of  the  Policy  for  Discharge  does  not  constitute discharge under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) but amounts to removal for misconduct under Rule 18 of the Rules.      It is  not  disputed  that  in  both  these  cases  the procedure prescribed under the Policy for Discharge has been followed. The  orders for  discharge of the respondents thus do not  suffer from  any infirmity and the Division Bench of the High  Court was  in error  in  setting  aside  the  said orders.      The appeals  are, therefore,  allowed, the  judgment of the Division  Bench of the High Court dated March 4, 1992 in W.A. Nos.  141 of  1992 and 152 of 1992 is set aside and the judgment of  the learned  single Judge dated January 3, 1992 dismissing the  writ petitions  filed by  the respondents is restored. No order as to costs.