Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 28-08-2019 in case of petitioner name Rabindra Kumar Shaw vs Union of India, Ministry of De
| |

Supreme Court Upholds Army Officer’s Termination for Disobedience

The case of Rabindra Kumar Shaw vs. Union of India, Ministry of Defence & Ors. involved the dismissal of an army personnel for disobedience of a lawful command. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 28th August 2019, upheld the termination of service, emphasizing that military discipline must be strictly enforced. The ruling highlights the principle that armed forces personnel are held to higher standards of discipline than civilians.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Rabindra Kumar Shaw, was enrolled in the Indian Army on 27th July 2000 in the Corps of Signals. He was posted at the 9th Corps Air Support Signal Unit (CASSU) when he was charged with willfully disobeying the orders of his superior officer. The charges communicated to him were:

First Charge

Under Section 41(2) of the Army Act:

“Disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer in that he, at Yol Cantonment, on 30 July 2009, when ordered by his Section Non-Commissioned Officer, Company Havaldar Major (Operator Cipher) Parmod Kumar, to perform the duties as Detachment In-charge of the unit Radio Monitoring Detachment from 1900 hrs. to 2359 hrs., did not do so.”

Second Charge

Under Section 41(2) of the Army Act:

“Disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer in that he, at Yol Cantonment, on 03 August 2009, when ordered by his Section Non-Commissioned Officer, Company Havaldar Major (Operator Cipher) Parmod Kumar, to perform the duties as Detachment In-charge of the unit Radio Monitoring Detachment from 1900 hrs. to 2359 hrs., failed to report to the Radio Department.”

Arguments by the Petitioner (Rabindra Kumar Shaw)

  • He denied willfully disobeying orders and justified his absence from duty by claiming an injury to his little finger on his right hand.
  • The penalty of termination of service was disproportionate to the charges framed against him.
  • The Summary Court Martial failed to provide him with a fair opportunity to defend himself.

Arguments by the Respondents (Union of India, Ministry of Defence)

  • The appellant was not a raw soldier but had served in the Army for nine years before the incident.
  • Deliberate and intentional disobedience of a lawful command is a serious charge in the armed forces.
  • The appellant refused to sign documents, cross-examine witnesses, or make a statement in his defense.
  • Despite having the opportunity, he did not summon any defense witnesses to support his claims.

Supreme Court’s Observations

1. Strict Enforcement of Discipline in the Armed Forces

The Supreme Court emphasized that the armed forces operate under stricter disciplinary norms than civilian employment. The Court observed:

“The Armed Forces personnel are different from civil services. Not being present at his detachment unit and disobeying the lawful command cannot be ignored lightly.”

2. Non-Cooperation with Court Martial Proceedings

The Court found that the appellant was given an opportunity to present his case but failed to do so. It stated:

“There is abundant material to show that the Appellant is guilty of disobeying the lawful command of his superiors not once but on two occasions.”

3. Justification of Termination Penalty

The Court rejected the argument that the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate. It ruled:

“The penalty of termination of service of the Appellant cannot be said to be incommensurate with the delinquency.”

Final Verdict

  • The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
  • The termination of the appellant’s service was upheld.
  • The Court ruled that there was no error in the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision affirming the termination.

Implications of the Judgment

  • Reaffirms that military personnel are held to higher standards of discipline than civilians.
  • Strengthens the authority of military commanders in enforcing discipline.
  • Establishes that refusal to perform duties can lead to strict consequences, including termination.
  • Emphasizes that court-martialed individuals must utilize available defense mechanisms rather than later alleging unfairness.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case underscores the principle that disobedience in the armed forces is a serious offense. The judgment ensures that discipline and adherence to commands remain non-negotiable in military operations. By upholding the termination, the ruling sets a precedent that deliberate non-compliance with orders can lead to the strictest consequences, reinforcing the need for discipline and order within the armed forces.


Petitioner Name: Rabindra Kumar Shaw.
Respondent Name: Union of India, Ministry of Defence & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Yol Cantonment.
Judgment Date: 28-08-2019.

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

Download Judgment: Rabindra Kumar Shaw vs Union of India, Mini Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-08-2019.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 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 August 2019
See all petitions in 2019 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

Similar Posts