After 32 years, Supreme Court revokes wrongful dismissal of former IAF squadron leader

The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the dismissal of a former Indian Air Force squadron leader nearly 32 years after the order was passed, holding that the punishment was disproportionate and unfair . The court also ordered restoration of his honour and granted consequential service benefits, bringing closure to a long legal battle.

The case dates back to 1987, when the officer, then serving as a Senior Operation Officer in a remote area of the Thar desert, became linked to an incident involving a driver employed with the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF), the engineering arm of the Border Roads Organisation under the Ministry of Defence . The driver had allegedly damaged a radar system and misbehaved in an intoxicated state. He was later taken away from the camp and left at a secluded location, after which he went missing and was subsequently found dead. This triggered both criminal proceedings and departmental action against those involved.

While the criminal case ended without conviction and the officer was discharged for lack of evidence, the Air Force still proceeded with disciplinary action. In 1993, squadron leader R Sood was dismissed from service, while his superior officer, who had issued the instructions, was given a comparatively lenient punishment of “severe displeasure for three years” .

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and K V Viswanathan found this disparity in punishment deeply unjust. The court held that the principle of equality was violated when a subordinate officer was punished far more harshly than a senior officer for actions arising from the same chain of command. It also noted that the explanation that the senior officer had already superannuated could not justify such unequal treatment.

The court further observed that once the Air Force chose to proceed through the criminal justice system and the officer was discharged for lack of evidence, it could not later impose inconsistent disciplinary punishment. Although the officer cannot be reinstated due to superannuation, the court held he is entitled to consequential benefits , including 50 per cent arrears of salary, notional promotion, pension benefits with interest, and review by the promotion committee.

Emphasising that restoration of honour is vital in armed forces service, the Supreme Court directed full compliance within three months and set aside the earlier High Court ruling that had upheld the dismissal.