Termination Of Trainee Cadet For Isolated Act Committed Under Severe Mental Distress, Without Dishonest Intent Is Shockingly Disproportionate: Delhi HC

Background Facts

The petitioner cleared the NDA entrance examination and joined the Air Force Academy in 2023 as a Flight Cadet in the Logistics Branch. In June 2023, he developed severe acne and was placed on isotretinoin medication. Subsequently, he was alleged to have been involved in two incidents concerning the theft of a fellow cadet's Hand Held Monitor (HHM), which was captured on CCTV. An informal investigation was initiated followed by proceedings before a Training Review Board (TRB). The TRB concluded he had committed serious indiscipline and recommended termination of his training and cadetship. This recommendation was approved, and his training was terminated in June 2024. The cadet challenged the order before the High Court by filing a writ petition.

It was submitted by the Cadet that the act of taking the Hand Held Monitor was done under a genuine mistake of fact, believing it to be his own, and therefore lacked any dishonest intention necessary to constitute theft. Further he was undergoing severe mental and emotional disturbance at the time of the incident, caused by side effects from his acne medication, which impaired his judgment.

He contended that the proceedings against him were procedurally unfair, violating principles of natural justice, as he was given only five minutes to present his defence before the termination was finalized by an unreasoned Gate Pass order. Further, the penalty of termination was shockingly disproportionate to a trivial, first-time incident stemming from a mistake and poor health.

On the other hand, the respondents contended that the Cadet's act of taking another cadet's Hand Held Monitor was captured twice on CCTV, which constituted a clear act of theft and serious indiscipline as defined under the Air Force Order. This reflected a gross lack of Officer-Like Qualities warranting strict action. It was contended that the cadet's claim of mental health issues was not supported by evidence.

The informal investigation and the Training Review Board proceedings were conducted in full compliance with the prescribed policy and principles of natural justice. The cadet was given ample opportunity to present his defence.

The respondents emphasized that the employee was a trainee cadet, not a commissioned officer, and therefore, the relationship was governed strictly by the training policy. They argued that the assessment of the quantum of punishment was the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority, and the Court should not sit in appeal over it unless there was patent illegality.

Findings of the Court

It was noted by the court that the Air Force Order mandates that while recommending a punishment, the past record, attitude towards training and overall suitability of the candidate must be considered. Further the punishment must be viewed as a means of correction rather than being solely punitive in nature. Also, the circumstances which led to commission of the act and the overall performance of the trainee in training also must be taken into consideration.

It was found by the court that the cadet was suffering from severe mental health issues and the same was corroborated from the statements of fellow cadets that the cadet had disturbed mental state at that point of time. Further it was noted that the cadet attempted suicide twice by hanging but was unable to do so due to anti suicidal fans in the rooms.

Therefore it was held by the court that the cadet had a previously clean record from the NDA and was suffering from severe mental health issues and psychological distress at the time of the incidents, which were corroborated by medical records and witness statements. It was observed that cadet's act was an isolated incident, inconsistent with a dishonest character. Further, that there was nothing on record to suggest the cadet was beyond reform or lacked Officer-Like Qualities.

It was concluded that the incident of theft lacked any intention of actual theft. Further, that cadet was under the influence of serious mental and emotional disturbance during the time of incident. Hence, the penalty of termination for a first-time offence was strikingly disproportionate, irrational, and perverse.

The termination order was held to be unsustainable and therefore, was set aside by the court. Consequential benefits and reinstatement were to be granted to the cadet within four weeks.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition filed by the cadet was allowed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Ex Flt Cdt Tarang Bhardwaj v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No. : W.P.(C) 11657/2024

Counsel for the Petitioner : Petitioner in person

Counsel for the Respondents : R.V. Sinha, A S Singh, Amit Sinha and Shriya Sharma, Advs., Kalyan Babu Singh, GP for UOI.