Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that termination of a trainee cadet from the Air Force Academy for a single incident involving a training device, committed while the cadet was under mental distress and without dishonest intent, was so disproportionate as to offend principles of natural justice. Allowing the cadet’s writ petition against the Union of India and Air Force authorities, the Court set aside the termination order and directed grant of consequential benefits. The Bench viewed the alleged theft of the Hand Held Monitor as, at most, a negligent act linked to psychological difficulties, and found that imposing the severest penalty on a first-time offender was incompatible with the corrective purpose of the disciplinary framework.

The petitioner joined the National Defence Academy in 2020 after clearing the entrance examination and completed training on 30.05.2023. He thereafter joined the Air Force Academy in June 2023 in the Logistics Branch. Around September 2023, he developed Grade-4 acne and was placed on isotretinoin medication at Military Hospital Secunderabad. An incident was later reported alleging involvement of the petitioner in taking Hand Held Monitors belonging to trainee cadets. An informal investigation was conducted under Air Force Order 30/2015, during which witness statements and the petitioner’s statement were recorded.

Also Read: Supreme Court Issues Notice on PIL Seeking Rules for Criminal Prosecution of Doctors in Medical Negligence Cases

The matter was placed before a Training Review Board, which relied on the informal investigation, CCTV footage, and the petitioner’s written statement to conclude that he had twice engaged in acts falling under Paras 9(d), 9(q) and 14 of Air Force Order 30/2015. The Board recommended termination under Paras 18(d)(iii) and 23(f), and the petitioner’s training was terminated on 19.06.2024. The petitioner asserted that he was under psychological distress, lacked dishonest intention, and was denied adequate opportunity of defence. The respondents contended that disciplinary action was justified, the TRB was duly constituted, and the termination was in accordance with the applicable policy.

The Court recorded that “we are conscious of the fact that this court cannot re-appreciate evidence on merits” but noted that judicial review is permissible where punishment appears “strikingly disproportionate or there is perversity or irrationality”. It stated that a cumulative reading of Air Force Order 30/2015 shows that punishment must be viewed as corrective and the trainee’s past conduct and circumstances must be considered.

The Court observed that the informal investigation revealed “the petitioner was suffering from severe mental health issues and the same is corroborated from the statements of fellow cadets”. Witness statements recorded that he had attempted suicide, displayed anxiety, and was unable to distinguish between right and wrong. The Court also noted the psychiatrist’s summary that the petitioner experienced “low mood, lack of interest in activities, reduced energy… episodic anxiety and passive death wishes”. It further recorded that the alleged incidents occurred in January 2024, during the period when medical opinion shows continued psychological disturbance.

It stated that the petitioner’s stance on mental distress was consistent and supported by contemporaneous records, and that the acts appeared to fall within “negligence and/or ignorance on the part of the petitioner”. It observed that nothing on record indicated intention to cheat or any prior misconduct, noting that the petitioner had a “spotless record” and the incident appeared “an isolated and one-off incident”. The Court stated that termination was “purely punitive and career destructive” and did not align with the guiding principles under Para 17.

The Court recorded that treating the petitioner as lacking officer-like qualities was not supported by material, noting his young age and absence of past indiscipline. It stated that the case was one where the punishment was “striking disproportionate, irrational, and inconsistent with the above discussed material”. It further recorded that the termination order was “perverse and the findings therein are such as no reasonable authority could have reached”.

Also Read: SFIO Probe No Bar To Parallel PMLA Proceedings ; Delhi High Court Upholds Provisional Attachments By ED in ₹6000 Cr Forex Scam

The Court stated that “the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is allowed and the punishment is set aside with consequential effect. Necessary consequential orders shall be issued and the benefits be accorded to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of furnishing the certified copy of the judgment.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Petitioner in person
For the Respondents: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. A.S. Singh, Mr. Amit Sinha, Ms. Shriya Sharma, Advocates; Mr. Kalyan Babu Singh, GP for UOI

Case Title: Ex Flt Cdt Tarang Bhardwaj v. Union of India & Ors
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:10503-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 11657/2024
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Om Prakash Shukla