New Delhi: For 33 years, former Indian Air Force officer R. Sood fought not just to overturn his dismissal, but to reclaim his honour.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court finally gave him both, declaring his 1993 termination on grounds of misconduct illegal, and directing the Air Force to formally sign him off “in the normal manner” as if he had retired from service.
“Irrespective of service benefits, restoration of honour remains the foremost concern of a defence personnel. 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,” said a two-judge bench of Dipankar Datta and K.V. Viswanathan.
The court also ordered the payment of benefits, such as salary arrears and allowances, from September 1993, when Sood was dismissed, until his scheduled retirement date, along with pensionary benefits. “The financial benefits due and payable in terms of this order, including increased pay subject to notional promotion being accorded, be calculated and paid to the appellant with interest,” it said.
Sood had joined the Indian Air Force as a pilot officer in 1972, and was dismissed from service around 21 years later by the Central government under Section 19 of the Air Force Act, 1950, read with Rule 16 of Air Force Rules, 1969, which empowers the Centre to dismiss or remove any person from service on grounds of misconduct.
Although the sessions court in January 1990 and a single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court in September 1999 set aside his suspension and discharged him of all offences, a two-judge Bench restored his suspension in January 2008, while acting on the Centre’s challenge to the same.
“It was felt that there is sufficient moral convincing evidence to show the officer’s culpability in the sordid episode, which eventually resulted in loss of human life,” the 2008 order had read.
Also Read: Saradha scam trials: 13 yrs on, Bengal’s biggest financial fraud stuck in a ‘stalemate’ in courts
The dismissal
The case dates back to 1987, when Sood was alleged to have taken a junior officer—a General Reserve Engineer Force driver—to a desolate place at night, where his remains were later found.
According to the Centre, the driver had caused damage to the radar, crucial for operations in desert conditions, while in an inebriated state.
It was alleged that on the night of 29 March, 1987, Sood and four others had taken the driver away from the camp in a jeep and left him at a secluded location approximately 5 km from the nearest Border Security Force post and about 30 km from the Air Force camp.
A missing report was lodged with civil police days later. The driver’s body was eventually recovered from the same location.
Consequently, Sood was dismissed from service by the Centre on 22 September, 1993.
What the court ruled now
In its 26-page ruling passed Wednesday, the court noted that the records revealed that Sood had acted in line with his superior’s directions.
The superior in question was a wing commander who had directed Sood to remove the driver from the camp on account of his disruptive conduct while under the influence of alcohol, and to prevent any untoward incident.
Setting aside the Delhi High Court’s 2008 ruling upholding his dismissal from service, the court noted, “We set aside the impugned order of the High Court, along with any other order passed in the matter.”
The court also noted that although the officer was discharged by a criminal court in January 1990, the Air Force recommended his dismissal to the Centre in June 1992.
“In the proceeding note dated 5 June, 1992, the authority, after taking note of the fact that the appellant had been discharged by a criminal court, noted that administrative action can still be initiated against the appellant since the effect of a discharge is that the appellant was neither ‘acquitted nor convicted’,” the court said.
Based on this interpretation, disciplinary action was initiated against Sood.
The court described the Indian Air Force’s understanding of the law as “fallacious”, noting that discharge refers to the pre-trial termination of proceedings due to lack of evidence.
“As and when ordered, discharge signifies and reinforces the position that there is no material against the accused for him to stand trial,” the court said.
On the other hand, acquittal is a post-trial outcome declaring the accused either innocent due to lack of credible material or due to the grant of the benefit of doubt.
“Insufficient evidence to even frame charges for standing trial would lead to a discharge while evidence presented not proving guilt leads to acquittal,” the court noted.
It added that an accused discharged of a criminal offence had a better standing than an accused who is finally acquitted after a full trial.
Once an accused has been discharged, they are entitled to all benefits that would typically be available to an acquitted person. This means they cannot be placed in a “less advantageous position”, the court explained. It also expressed “surprise” at the officer who prepared the 1992 note and suggested his removal.
Finally, the court noted that the Air Force, after choosing to have the offence tried by a criminal court, cannot fall back on either a court martial or any disciplinary action.
“Once the road is chosen, the traveller must walk it to the end,” the court said.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)