The Delhi High Court set aside the dismissal of a Flight Cadet accused of stealing HHMs, calling the punishment disproportionate and irrational. The Court stressed that his actions occurred during severe mental disturbance and cannot define his fitness to be an officer.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday provided major relief to a young Flight Cadet whose training at the Air Force Academy had been abruptly terminated last year after allegations that he stole Hand Held Monitors (HHMs) belonging to fellow cadets.
The Court found that the extreme punishment given to him was unfair, excessive and not in line with the actual circumstances surrounding the incident, especially considering his mental health condition at the time.
ALSO READ: Ex-CJI BR Gavai Explains Khajuraho Remark: ‘Out of Context’ Controversy Settled
A Division Bench comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla allowed the cadet’s petition and strongly criticised the decision of the Training Review Board, stating that the punishment imposed was unreasonable and not proportionate to the alleged misconduct.
The Bench took note of the fact that the cadet had a clean record throughout his career and was going through serious emotional and psychological distress when the incidents allegedly occurred.
The Court observed,
“That situation is completely incongruous with a dishonest, and cheating mindset and completely consistent with a clear error of judgment in his actions. Hence, we find that a young trainee/cadet experiencing short term psychiatric issues or at best, whose act can be termed as negligent and/or ignorant, cannot be treated as a thief or person unworthy of being an officer,” it said.
Further explaining its reasoning, the Court added that even if the theft allegations were taken at face value, the incidents appeared to be isolated and influenced by the cadet’s fragile mental state at that time.
It said,
“The Court added that even if it were assumed that the theft had actually taken place, it appeared to be an “isolated and one-off incident, under the influence of undergoing psychological distress at that time and at best, it may be termed to be as negligence and/or an ignorant act by the petitioner or situation where he had difficulty in choosing his course of conduct.”
Highlighting the importance of reform and the young age of the petitioner, the Bench stated,
“Moreover, given his young age between 19 and 21 years, it cannot reasonably be concluded that he is now beyond reform. There is nothing on record except the alleged stray incident to concur that petitioner is unworthy of becoming that an isolated, one-off incident of theft by a cadet going through mental health problems cannot render him unworthy of being an officer in the Air Force an officer. Therefore, we find that it would be unfair to categorise him as a person without officer-like qualities,”
the Court further said.
The petitioner had earlier completed his training at the National Defence Academy in 2019 and later joined the Air Force Academy in 2023 as a logistics trainee.
However, in June 2024, his training was terminated after two separate incidents involving HHMs were reported. In the first instance, an HHM belonging to a fellow cadet was found in his room.
In the second, he was accused of taking another cadet’s HHM. Based on CCTV footage and his own statements, the Training Review Board concluded that he had committed ‘serious indiscipline’ and labelled the actions as theft, leading to his dismissal from the academy.
Despite this, the High Court relied on several witness statements and medical reports which showed that the cadet was battling severe psychological problems at the relevant time.
The records also revealed that he had attempted suicide, clearly indicating that he was not in a stable mental condition.
The Court noted,
“It is safe to conclude that petitioner was under the influence of serious mental and emotional disturbance during the time of alleged incident, it said.”
A medical summary from the Command Hospital in Bengaluru confirmed that the cadet had been suffering from symptoms of depression and anxiety from October 2023 to February 2024.
The Bench pointed out that the Training Review Board failed to adequately consider these important factors and did not follow corrective principles that should have been applied in such a sensitive situation.
Strongly criticising the decision-making process, the Court concluded,
“Ergo, this Court, in view of the aforesaid peculiar circumstances, holds that this is one of those cases where punishment imposed was striking disproportionate, irrational, and inconsistent with the above discussed material. The impugned termination order, according to us, is perverse and the findings therein are such as no reasonable authority could have reached. Therefore, this Court is not only permitted but duty-bound, to set aside the punishment in the present case,” it concluded.
Notably, the petitioner argued his case in person before the High Court, highlighting his determination to seek justice. Advocates RV Sinha, AS Singh, Amit Sinha, Shriya Sharma and Kalyan Babu Singh appeared on behalf of the Union of India during the proceedings.
Through this detailed ruling, the Delhi High Court has once again underlined the importance of compassion, proportionality and mental health considerations in disciplinary matters involving young trainees, especially when their future and careers are at stake.
Read More Reports On Ex-CJI BR Gavai
