Supreme Court Rules on Navy Sailor’s Dismissal: AFT’s Jurisdiction in Military Disciplinary Cases

The case of Union of India & Ors. vs. R. Karthik is a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court ruled on the powers of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) in mitigating disciplinary actions taken against military personnel. The Court examined whether the dismissal of a Navy sailor for misconduct was excessive and whether the AFT had jurisdiction to alter the punishment.

Background of the Case

• The respondent, R. Karthik, was enrolled in the Indian Navy on July 31, 2008, and was serving as a Writer on board INS Gharial.
• On May 29, 2013, during a routine operation, an altercation occurred between the respondent and Lt. Abhishek Vardhan, an officer on duty.
• Lt. Vardhan complained that the sailor refused to comply with orders and later became aggressive, leading to physical assault.
• Based on the complaint, the Summary Trial held on July 24, 2013, found the respondent guilty under Section 45(a) of the Navy Act, 1957 and sentenced him to dismissal from service and deprivation of his First Good Conduct Badge.
• The respondent challenged the order before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai, which ruled in his favor by modifying the punishment to 75 days detention instead of dismissal.
• The Union of India appealed before the Supreme Court, challenging the AFT’s decision.

Key Legal Issues Considered

• Whether the AFT had jurisdiction to substitute the Navy’s disciplinary order with a lesser punishment.
• Whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct.
• Whether procedural fairness was maintained in the disciplinary proceedings.
• Whether the officer involved in the altercation was also liable for misconduct.

Arguments of the Petitioner (Union of India)

• The Union of India contended that the respondent had assaulted a superior officer, which is a serious offense under military discipline.
• The disciplinary proceedings followed all due process and concluded that the respondent was guilty.
• The Navy Act provides that military discipline must be strictly enforced, and leniency in such cases sets a bad precedent.
• The AFT exceeded its jurisdiction by altering the punishment, as it did not have the authority to interfere in military disciplinary matters.

Arguments of the Respondent (R. Karthik)

• The respondent argued that the altercation was not premeditated but occurred as a reflex reaction to verbal provocation by the officer.
• The officer had used abusive language toward him, which contributed to the incident.
• The AFT correctly ruled that the punishment of dismissal was excessive and substituted it with 75 days detention.
• The superior officer, Lt. Vardhan, was also found guilty of misconduct but was given a lighter punishment of a one-month loss of seniority.

Supreme Court’s Observations

• The Court recognized that the AFT has the power to review and modify military disciplinary decisions under Section 15(6) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
• The Court observed that the Commanding Officer who handled the case on the ship was aware of the extent of the misconduct and still imposed a lesser sentence.
• It was noted that three key witnesses did not testify that the respondent physically assaulted the officer.
• The Court stated: “Even though a superior officer used abusive language, a sailor is expected to maintain discipline. However, the punishment must not be excessive.”
• The Supreme Court emphasized that the Tribunal was competent to alter the sentence if it was deemed disproportionate or unjust.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled as follows:

• The AFT’s decision to modify the punishment from dismissal to 75 days detention was upheld.
• The Union of India’s appeal was dismissed, affirming that the punishment imposed by the Tribunal was reasonable.
• The respondent was directed to be reinstated within two months, but he would not be entitled to back wages.
• All consequential benefits, including pay fixation and seniority adjustments, were to be restored.

This ruling reaffirms the role of the AFT in ensuring fairness in military disciplinary actions and sets a precedent that punishments must be proportional to the offense.

Petitioner Name: Union of India & Ors..
Respondent Name: R. Karthik.
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: INS Gharial, Indian Navy.
Judgment Date: 21-01-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Union of India & Ors vs R. Karthik Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 21-01-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Disciplinary Proceedings
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category