LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/s-p-pandey-vs-union-of-india-ors-20241021/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

S.P. Pandey vs Union of India & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
21 October 2024
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 6186 of 2018
Result
Disposed
Bench
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Sandeep Mehta
Citation
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2314 : 2024 INSC 804
Acts & Sections
Air Force Act, 1950, Regulations of the Air…
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2314 : 2024 INSC 804
Issue for consideration
Appellant-Airman, was charged for “Violation of good order and Air Force Discipline” and “Use of insubordinate language to a superior officer”. An order of admonition was passed on 18.05.2010 against the appellant by the Officiating Commanding Officer. Armed Force Tribunal set aside the punishment of ‘Admonition’ passed against the appellant vide order dated 18.01.2011. Not satisfied with the order of Armed Forces Tribunal, appellant demanded compensation by filing the present appeals.
Headnote

Air Force Act, 1950 - Regulations for the Air Force – Misconduct – Measure of determining adequate punishment for infractions – Balance and proportion that needs to be maintained between an infraction and its punishment will always be at the core of good governance – Compensation for suffering unnecessary and long-drawn litigation: Held: When the institutions that we build grow beyond proportion, officers act mechanically and many a times helplessly, ignore the simple and readily available remedies that are available in our normal lives – An incident like this would have ended if a senior officer had at the right time intervened and resolved the issue by taking into account the emotional aspect of the dispute – Perhaps a simple apology by respondent No. 7 would have gone a long way, but that did not happen – One is aware of how insignificant the monetary value of loss of dignity could be, but legal remedies that they are, enable this Court to settle it only as a measure, a token of concern and in recognition of a citizen’s identity and dignity – Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and having noted the specific and clear findings of the Tribunal, the respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1 lakh to the appellant towards compensation for having suffered an unnecessary and a long-drawn litigation that was foisted on him. [Paras 11 and 12]

Keywords: Admonition, Good Governance, Misconduct, Balance, Proportion, Compensation

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Himanshu Rai, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Order Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. 1. The appellant is not satisfied that the Armed Forces Tribunal, Jaipur has allowed his OA and quashed the order of Admonition passed against him on 18.01.2011. He demands compensation for the wrongful order by filing the present appeal. We agreed with him and for reasons to follow, allowed the appeal and granted compensation. 2. Facts of the case are that the appellant was enrolled in the Indian Air Force in 1997 as Airman in the trade of Radar Fitter. At the relevant time, he was posted on the strength of 333 TRU C/o 5 FBSU, Air Force where he commen
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →