Supreme Court orders farewell for IAF officer dismissed in 1993

NEw new delhi: troika decades after he was dismissed from serve in what the sublime margaret court has now found to be an unsustainable exercise of power, a former Indian Air Force officer will finally receive the dignity of a formal farewell.In a rare order, the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed that the septuagenarian be given a formal ceremonial send-off, declaring that for a soldier, “restoration of honour remains the foremost concern.”A bench of justices Dipankar Datta and KV Viswanathan set aside former squadron leader R Sood’s 1993 dismissal, holding that the decision-making process was flawed and legally untenable. “We restore it with the direction that on a date to be fixed by the Chief of Air Staff, the appellant shall be signed off in the normal manner he would have otherwise been entitled to, but for the order of dismissal,” the court said.The court also granted him substantial service benefits, including 50% back wages, notional promotion, pensionary benefits, and interest on dues.Sood was dismissed from service on September 22, 1993 under Section 19 of the Air Force Act after being held guilty of misconduct linked to a 1987 incident in which a civilian driver was allegedly abandoned in a remote desert location, where his remains were later found.However, the Supreme Court found that the foundation of the disciplinary action itself was deeply flawed. Crucially, Sood had earlier been discharged by a criminal court due to lack of evidence -- a fact the bench said placed him in a stronger position than even an acquitted person.The court took serious exception to the Air Force authorities’ understanding of the law, noting that discharge signifies absence of material to proceed with a trial and cannot justify subsequent punitive administrative action based on the same facts.It also flagged glaring inconsistencies in the treatment of officers involved. While Sood faced the extreme penalty of dismissal, his commanding officer, who had issued instructions forming part of the same chain of events, was let off with a comparatively minor punishment of “severe displeasure”.Calling this disparity troubling, the bench said the principle of equality had been violated. It emphasised that a subordinate officer could not be singled out for harsher punishment, especially when acting under the directions of a superior.The judgment also criticised the absence of adequate reasoning and the failure to consider relevant circumstances, including the role of senior officers and the legal effect of the criminal court’s discharge order.“In the absence of distinguishing features, the appellant ought to have been treated on a par with the (commanding officer)…The principle of equality would be violated when a subordinate officer is meted out the harshest punishment for complying with a wrongful order of his superior, while the latter who issued it gets a lenient treatment leading to a reprieve of sorts,” held the court, adding that the proceedings stood vitiated by arbitrariness.Setting aside the dismissal, the court noted that Sood had already crossed the age of superannuation and could not be reinstated. Nevertheless, it held that he was entitled to all consequential benefits as if the dismissal had never occurred.While awarding 50% back wages citing lack of material on whether he remained unemployed after dismissal, the court directed that all financial dues be paid with 9% interest from the date of filing of his writ petition in the 1990s.But beyond monetary relief, the bench placed particular emphasis on symbolic justice.“Irrespective of service benefits, restoration of honour remains the foremost concern of a defence personnel,” said the court, directing that Sood be formally signed off in the manner he would have been entitled to otherwise.