Petitioner in person. vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Judgment

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief(s):- “a) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 21.06.2024 from the Air Force Academy Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11657/2024 Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:29.11.2025 13:03:14 b) To issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into the Academy and to allow Petitioner to continue his training. c) To issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to disburse the outstanding monthly arrears for the training Period”

2. The facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner having cleared the National Defence Academy (NDA) entrance examination 2019, joined the Academy in 2020, and passed out on

30.05.2023 after completing his training.

3. Following his training, he joined the Air Force Academy (AFA) in June 2023 in the Logistics Branch, and around September 2023, the petitioner is reported to have developed Grade-4 acne and was placed on isotretinoin medication at Military Hospital (MH) Secunderabad.

4. Subsequent to this, an incident of serious indiscipline was reported, wherein the Petitioner was alleged to have been involved in a theft of Hand Held Monitor (HHM) belonging to another trainee cadets, his involvement was alleged to have been established through a CCTV footage. Therefore, following the procedure laid down in Air Force Order1 No. 30/2015, an informal investigation was instituted where both the statements of witnesses and petitioner were recorded to examine the alleged incident. Signature Not Verified 1 “AFO” hereinafter W.P.(C) 11657/2024 Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:29.11.2025 13:03:14

5. Thereafter, following the aforesaid informal investigation and treating the said incident as an act of serious indiscipline within the meaning of Para 9(d) of AFO 30/2015, the matter was placed before a Training Review Board2.

6. The TRB relying on informal investigation, recommendation recorded that the petitioner was involved in two

incidents concerning Hand Held Monitors (HHMs). On the first occasion, it was alleged that an HHM belonging to a fellow cadet was found in petitioner’s room and on the second, that an HHM belonging to another cadet was taken by petitioner and the same was replaced with another cadet HHM. Henceforth, the TRB purportedly relying on informal investigation, the CCTV footage, the petitioner’s statements, concluded that he had committed serious indiscipline by twice engaging in theft of Hand Held Monitors (HHMs) and these acts amounted to “serious indiscipline” under Paras 9(d), 9(q) and 14 of AFO 30/2015.

7. Consequently, the TRB recommended that the petitioner’s training and cadetship be terminated in terms of Paras 18(d)(iii) and 23(f) of AFO 30/2015.

8. In pursuance thereof, TRB’s recommendations were approved and the petitioner’s training and cadetship were terminated vide order dated 19.06.2024. Signature Not Verified 2 “TRB” hereinafter W.P.(C) 11657/2024 Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:29.11.2025 13:03:14

9. It is in this background that the petitioner has approached this court by virtue of the present writ petition. RIVAL SUBMISSIONS

10. It was submitted by the petitioner, appearing in-person that in the months of November and December 2023, he began experiencing frequent illness and symptoms including low mood, loss of interest in activities, reduced energy, difficulty in concentration, disturbed sleep, negative or pessimistic thoughts, episodic anxiety and passive death wishes, for which he was referred to the Psychiatry Department at MH Secunderabad, where he underwent treatment for about a month and was placed in a low medical category. However, he asserted that his acne medication was later discontinued from February 2024 to May 2024 and that during this period of drug-free observation he did not have any psychiatric complaints.

11. It was further submitted by the petitioner that in the course of training at AFA, each cadet was issued a HHM as part of the training. The Petitioner asserts that at one point his tablet went missing, and while searching in the cadets’ premises he found a tablet identical to his and, under the belief that it was his own, picked it up. It is further asserted that upon noticing another identical tablet, he left the first tablet where he found it, took the second one and left the premises, believing that one to be his.

12. Thereafter, on the following morning his original HHM was returned to him, and a fellow course mate reported his own tablet Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11657/2024 Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:29.11.2025 13:03:14 missing. Following that, CCTV footage showed the petitioner taking the course-mate’s tablet, and that upon realising the error he returned the same.

13. The petitioner submitted that he lacked any dishonest intention and that the ingredients of theft were not fulfilled. Further, it was submitted that the Supreme Court in the judgment of Chandi Kumar Das Karmarkar v. Abanidhar Roy3, held that a bona fide claim of right, if reasonable, negates the offence of theft.

14. It was submitted that he was subjected to arbitrary and procedurally unfair treatment by the respondents, culminating in his abrupt termination through an unreasoned “Gate Pass” dated

21.06.2025, without being afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing and with only five minutes permitted to present his defence, thus violating the principles of natural justice. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in M.M. Malhotra v. Union of India4, to submit that misconduct must involve wilful wrongdoing and not mere error of judgment, as well as on Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of A.P5, to underscore the importance of the reformative theory of punishment.

15. The petitioner further invoked the principle of proportionality and relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India6, Bhagat Ram v. State of H.P7, Om Kumar v. Union