The Delhi High Court came to the aid of a young trainee who is experiencing short-term psychiatric difficulties, and ruled that a conduct which may at worst be characterised as negligent or inadvertent, cannot fairly treat a cadet of the Air Force Academy (AFA) as a thief or as someone unworthy of officer-ship. The Court highlighted that in the absence of any evidence of any other dishonest act or any financial motive, it would be disproportionate for a trainee with an otherwise exemplary record from an institution as distinguished as the National Defence Academy to be subjected to a punishment that is effectively career-ending.
Looking at the repeated references to the disturbed mental condition of the cadet (petitioner) of the AFA, which was duly corroborated by the contemporaneous medical documentation, the Court held that the cadet’s conduct of involvement in the alleged theft of a Hand-Held Monitor belonging to another trainee cadet would fall within the realm of negligence or inadvertence rather than deliberate misconduct.
Referring to the Training Review Board (TRB) Guidelines, the Court emphasised that the punishment should serve as a corrective measure rather than operate as a purely punitive sanction. Stating that there should be a clear distinction between deliberate intent and an error of judgment, the Court highlighted that the termination of the petitioner was not corrective; rather, it is entirely punitive and career-destructive in effect.
Therefore, discarding this conduct of the respondents in imposing the most severe penalty on a first-time offender, foreclosing any prospect of rehabilitation, the Court concluded that the alleged incident does not reveal any intention or dishonest act amounting to actual theft, and the punishment imposed is strikingly disproportionate and irrational, thereby warranting interference in the exercise of judicial review.
Accordingly, pointing out that the petitioner is a young cadet with his entire career ahead of him, who has cleared the NDA examination on his first attempt, completed three years of rigorous training, and secured his place at the Air Force Academy through sustained hard work and merit, the Court set aside the punishment and allowed the petition.
The Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that an isolated, one-off occurrence arising under conditions of mental disturbance, at most, could be characterised as negligence or ignorance, or a situation in which the petitioner had difficulty determining an appropriate course of action. Given his young age, between 19 and 21 years, and no material suggesting that the petitioner is unfit to become an officer, apart from this solitary incident, the Bench said that it would be unjust for the AFA to categorise the petitioner as ‘lacking officer-like qualities’.
The Bench referred to the AFO to observe that while recommending any punishment, the TRB is required to consider factors such as the trainee’s past record, attitude towards training, and overall suitability. Further, the punishment should function as a corrective measure rather than being purely punitive, and mere negligence on the part of the trainee, as well as circumstances beyond the trainee’s control, are valid grounds for refraining from terminating the training.
From perusal of the informal investigation materials, the Bench found that the petitioner was suffering from significant mental health issues during the relevant period, and had also attempted suicide twice by hanging, but was prevented due to the presence of anti-suicidal fans in the rooms. These incidents were duly corroborated by the witness.
Briefly, the petitioner cleared the NDA entrance examination in 2019, joined the Academy in 2020, and, after completion of training, joined the Air Force Academy in June 2023. In the meantime, he developed Grade-4 acne and was placed on isotretinoin treatment at the Military Hospital. Subsequently, a serious indiscipline incident was reported, alleging the petitioner’s involvement in the theft of a Hand-Held Monitor belonging to another trainee cadet.
Following an informal investigation and treating the incident as an act of serious indiscipline under Air Force Order (AFO), the matter was referred to a Training Review Board (TRB), which recommended termination of the petitioner’s training and cadetship, which was accepted by an order dated June 19, 2024.
Appearances:
Petitioner, in person
Advocates R.V. Sinha, AS Singh, Amit Sinha, Shriya Sharma, and Kalyan Babu Singh, for the Respondent
