JAI BHAGWAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) dated 9.10.2012 dismissing the writ petitioner's application, which has been challenged. The petitioner had questioned his discharge from service of the Air Force by the order dated 5.5.2011. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was enrolled with Indian Air Force as Airman on 27.06.2006. He submits that he claims to have had an unblemished record of service till May, 2010. After that, during the year in rapid succession in June, August, September and November, 2010, "red ink entries" were awarded to him in respect of his conduct. The first two pertain to his overstaying the leave; he was awarded 14 days' penalty of confinement to camp in each occasion. For the next two red ink entries, various minor misconducts were alleged; he was awarded penalty of 8 days and 12 days of being confined to camp. Significantly, neither at that time, nor contemporaneously, does the petitioner appear to have protested these orders; he did not seek any remedies questioning them.

(2.) It is contended that the penalty orders could not be questioned because the legal provisions enabling an aggrieved Air Force personnel to do so, were complex and not easily understandable by a lay man. The petitioner claims to be a lay man but educated up to 12th standard. In this background of circumstances, the impugned order discharging the petitioner from service on the basis of a provision which entitled the Air Force to discharge any personnel who earned more than three red ink entries, was invoked. The petitioner approached the AFT which after considering the pleadings, dismissed the application. The Tribunal reasoned as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel argued that the Tribunal fell into error in not seeing that the red ink entries were made mala fide. He pointed out that the concerned Wing Commander to whom the petitioner was expected to -- and in fact did report, bore him some malice as a result of which he made repeated red ink entries. It was submitted that the Tribunal's remark that the petitioner did not challenge the red ink entries, could not be accepted because he was not aware of the legal remedies available to him.