Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Ex. Me-1 Yashpal Yadav (Navy No. … vs Uoi on 24 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 82/2025
Ex. Me-1 Yashpal Yadav (Navy No. 2217074T), Resident Of
Village And Po Khatuwas, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. UOI, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Defence,
Govt. Of India, New Delhi.
2. Chief Of Naval Staff, Ihq Of Ministry Of Defence
(Navy), New Delhi - 110011
3. Commanding Officer, Ins Savitri, C/o Fleet Mail
Office, Visakhapatnam- 530014
4. Lt Commander Brajesh Kumar (Navy No. 42457T),
C/o Chief Of Naval Staff, IHQ Of Mod (Navy), New
Delhi -110011
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.P. Singh, Sr. Adv. assisted
by Mr. Ashish Poonia
Mr. O. P. Sheoran
Mr. Rituraj Kaur Bhullar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, (Sr. Adv.) ASG
assisted by Mr. P.C. Sharma,
CGPC and Ms. Anima Chaturvedi
Commander Akarshan
Commander Lalit
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Order
1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 19.02.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 19.02.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only operative Full
part is pronounced
4. Date of pronouncement 24.03.2026
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (2 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
REPORTABLE
Per, Hon’ble Ravi Chirania, J
“Discipline at the workplace is the sine qua non
for the efficient working of the organization.”
1. The present case involves the issue of serious
insubordination and causing of physical injuries by a
subordinate to his senior officer while on duty serving as a
Sailor in the Indian Navy and whether the punishment
awarded is disproportionate in the given facts and
circumstances.
2. In the present case, the petitioner – Yash Pal Yadav
has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,
challenging the order dated 05.11.2024 passed by learned
Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Jaipur (hereinafter
referred to as ‘learned Tribunal’ for short), in Original
Application No. 137/2014 (hereinafter referred as ‘O.A.’)
along with Misc. Application Nos. 74/2015 and 373/2016.
3. By the impugned order dated 05.11.2024, the learned
Tribunal, by dismissing the O.A., upheld the punishment
order dated 31.10.2013, which had been imposed pursuant
to a summary trial conducted by the respondents herein.
4. Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.P. Singh, Senior
Counsel, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Ashish Poonia, Mr.
O.P. Sheoran and Ms. Rituraj Kaur Bhullar, briefly stated
that the petitioner-applicant (herein referred to
‘petitioner’) enrolled as a Sailor (ME-I) in the Indian Navy
on 29.07.2009. It is further submitted that from the date of
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (3 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
his enrollment till the occurrence of the alleged unfortunate
incident on 27.05.2013, the petitioner maintained an
unblemished and dedicated service record and accordingly,
his performance was consistently referred as “Very Good”
and his conduct was found to be good by his senior officers.
It is further submitted that, considering his meritorious
service and good conduct, he was awarded the First Good
Conduct Badge by the respondent.
5. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. R.P. Singh, submitted
that on the unfortunate day, i.e., 27.05.2013, while the
petitioner was on duty at INS Savitri, he was called by his
superior officer, Lieutenant Commander Brajesh Kumar to
his cabin. It was further contended that upon entering the
cabin, the said officer allegedly shouted at the petitioner,
used highly abusive and vulgar language, and provoked him
without any fault or justification on his part. He further
contended that the petitioner being aware of his duty to
maintain discipline as required in the forces and in order to
avoid any kind of confrontation, sought permission to leave
the cabin, however, as stated, while the petitioner was in
the process of leaving, he was kicked by the said officer on
the upper part of his hip. This alleged act of intentional
provocation and physical assault was initiated by the said
officer which led to a scuffle between the petitioner and Lt.
Cdr. Brajesh Kumar, on account of which both persons
sustained injuries.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (4 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
6. For the said incident, a One Man Inquiry was initiated
against the petitioner by the Commanding Officer for a
charge under Section 45(a) of the Navy Act, 1957
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1957’), hereinafter
One Man Enquiry was conducted and after that
summary court martial proceedings were conducted
against the petitioner pertaining to striking a superior
officer, was levelled against him. Learned Senior Counsel
further submitted that although the petitioner’s statement
was recorded by the Board of Enquiry, but a copy of the
same was not supplied to him. Learned Senior Counsel
further submitted that the petitioner had been suffering
from a serious backache problem prior to the incident and
had sought a few medical leaves for the same, which were
denied and further, because of the intentional assault by the
said officer and the scuffle that took place, the petitioner
sustained serious internal injuries and therefore, he
remained hospitalized at INHS Kalyani from 14.06.2013 to
28.08.2013 which according to the petitioner, was a direct
consequence of the injuries as suffered by him in an
unfortunate incident occurred on 27.05.2013.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
inquiry was conducted against the petitioner in a forceful
manner thereafter, summary court martial proceedings were
conducted also in illegal manner in which the punishment of
rigorous imprisonment for 90 days, dismissal from Naval
Services and deprivation of the First Good Conduct Badge
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (5 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
with effect from 31.10.2013 was imposed upon him. He
further submitted that the Summary Court Martial
proceedings as conducted against him, were illegal and in
serious violation of the principles of natural justice.
8. Aggrieved by the punishment order dated 31.10.2013,
the petitioner preferred a statutory petition under Sections
162 and 163 of the Navy Act, 1957 before the Chief of
Naval Staff on 01.05.2014. In the said petition, various
grounds were raised challenging the punishment order,
however, the said petition has not been decided till date and
has not been replied.
9. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that,
aggrieved by the punishment order dated 31.10.2013 and
the inaction of respondents of not deciding the statutory
petition submitted under the Navy Act, 1957, the petitioner
availed the remedy provided under Section 14 of the AFT
Act, 2007, by filing an O.A. along with the two Misc.
Applications, before the learned Tribunal. It was further
submitted that the learned Tribunal issued notices to the
respondents and after hearing the parties, dismissed the
O.A. without making any interference with the impugned
punishment order dated 31.10.2013. Learned Senior
Counsel further contended that the learned Tribunal
dismissed the O.A. by placing reliance upon certain
judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which are not
directly applicable to the facts of the present case.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (6 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
10. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. R.P. Singh, further
submitted that the conduct of Lt. Cdr. Brajesh Kumar was
also found to be inappropriate in withdrawing petitioner’s
identity card and denying him leave without following the
due procedure. The learned Tribunal failed to consider that
it was the said officer who first intentionally provoked the
petitioner and then physically assaulted him, which led to
the scuffle between the two in which both persons sustained
injuries. However, the learned Tribunal, acting in a
mechanical manner, failed to consider the fact that the
punishment awarded to petitioner by the respondents, was
seriously disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Being
aggrieved by the above said orders, the petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
11. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the law with
regard to interference by the Constitutional Courts, while
exercising powers of judicial review in matters arising out of
disciplinary proceedings, is well settled. In view of the
settled legal position, learned Senior Counsel confined his
arguments with regard to the quantum of punishment
awarded by the respondent, which is highly disproportionate
to the nature of the alleged misconduct and is highly
unreasonable and unjustified in the facts and circumstances
of the present case.
12. To buttress his arguments with regard to
disproportionate punishment, the learned Senior Counsel
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (7 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
first referred to the facts related to the incident that
occurred on 27.05.2013. He submitted that as it is evident
from the statements recorded by the One-Man Inquiry that
the alleged incident took place at around 1000 hours (10:00
a.m.), when the petitioner entered the cabin of his superior
officer, Lt Cdr Brajesh Kumar. It was contended that upon
entering the cabin, the petitioner was severely abused and
was physically assaulted by the said officer, which led to a
scuffle between them, in which both persons sustained
injuries. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
statement of petitioner as recorded during the proceedings,
clearly shows that the petitioner also suffered injuries and it
was the high-handed and intentional provocative conduct of
the said officer, which led to the alleged incident. The
statement of the petitioner, as recorded in the Board of
Enquiry proceedings, is reproduced as under:-
“STATEMENT OF YASHPAL YADAV, ME-I,
221074
मै आज Sick parade गया कल से काफी Back Pain हो रहा था
PMO Sir ने मुझे बोला DO के साइन करवा के लाओ मै SICK
PARADE BOOK ले के EO सर की cabin मे गया EO सर ने
मेरे को बोला ककस कलए आया है मैनने बोला सर Sick Parade के
कलए EO Sir ने मेरे को बोला तेरे जादा गां ड मसी है तु डे ली Sick
Parade जाता है मैनने बोला Sir मुझे real problem है मुझे
काफी Back Pain हो रहा है मेरे को बोला मै साइन नही ं कर
ं गा
fuck of from here और बोला मै इधर तेरी गांड मार सकता हं
तू मेरा का कर सकता है और बोला तू हररयाणा का है तो मै पंजाब
का गुंडा हं मैनने बोला Sir Please गाली मत दो तो उनोंनने मेरा गला
पकड कलया और बोला तेरे मां -बाप ऐसे ही है तेरे को Manner नही ं
कसखाया कफर उनोंनने मेरा हाथ पकड कलया कफर मै उधर से Self
Defence के कलए झटका मार के नीचे भाग आया कजसमे मेरी शटर
फट गई और मेरे अंगूठे मे ददर हो रहा है ”
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (8 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
13. Despite the fact that the statement being specific,
clear and sufficiently shows the serious conduct of the
senior officer himself, arbitrarily denying him leave and then
abusing him seriously by using vulgar and abusive language
which led to the alleged incident, the learned Tribunal
without considering the same, accepted one-side of the
story on the basis of the statement Lt. Cdr. Brajesh Kumar
and other interested witnesses who deposed in his support.
The witnesses who appeared in support of the prosecution
case were, firstly, Lt. Commander Brajesh Kumar (42457-T)
himself, Surg. Lt. Sudarshan Naik (76085-W), S.A.I. Mohit
Kumar (218575-N), CHME Fulchand Yadav (172687-Y) and
Lt. Avinash Singh (06737-K).
14. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that despite
the fact that there was no eyewitness present inside the
cabin who could narrate the correct facts about the incident
alleged to have occurred on that unfortunate day, the
complete one-sided version was accepted and severe
punishment impugned in the present petition was imposed
on the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is
a Sailor who had never been involved in any misconduct
prior to this incident. His unblemished service record in the
past clearly demonstrates that he had a good conduct and
therefore, was awarded the First Good Conduct Badge by
the respondents themselves.
15. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that both
the statutory petitions as well as the O.A. were dismissed in
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (9 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
a mechanical manner, without considering the critically
important issue of the quantum of punishment. He further
contended that the punishment imposed on the petitioner
was seriously disproportionate, unreasonable and
unjustified, more so when the conduct of the Lt. Cdr.
Brajesh Kumar was also found improper and inappropriate
by the respondents themselves. As the learned Senior
Counsel has pressed the present writ petition and the order
impugned majorly on the ground that the punishment as
imposed was seriously disproportionate, therefore, he
referred to the punishments awarded to similarly situated
personnel at the same time in two separate similar
proceedings conducted at two different locations i.e.,
Chennai and Lucknow parallel to the present one, where
similar allegations of insubordination and assault on a
superior officer were involved and except the present one,
in the two cases, i.e., at Chennai in the case of R. Karthik
and in Lucknow in the case of Nitesh Rai, the punishment
orders were quashed and issue attained finality after
examination by the Hon’ble Apex Court and thereafter, the
personnel were reinstated with all relevant service benefits.
16. The learned Senior Counsel first cited the case of R.
Karthik, who was also a Sailor and charged with striking a
superior officer. According to the learned Senior Counsel, R.
Karthik had joined the service in the year 2008 and was
approximately 19 years of age (a young Sailor) at the time
of the alleged incident. It was further submitted that an
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (10 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
unfortunate incident occurred on 29.05.2013, when his
superior officer, Lt. Abhishek Vardhan, lodged a complaint
seeking strict disciplinary action against R. Karthik. The
contents of the complaint made against the Sailor R.
Karthik reads as under:-
“The ship left harbour on 29 May 13 at about
0830 hrs. We were to receive Seaking C-560
onboard at 1000 hrs so flying stations was piped
& Aviation Core Team was mustered on helo
deck. Being the Aviation Officer of the ship,
I went to helo deck to prepare the deck for
flying. When I mustered the Aviations Core
Team, Karthik, WTR I was missing. I called up
bridge and requested SSD OOW to announce for
him. After about 15-20 minutes and 2 more
announcements Karthik, Writer, I, finally came to
helo deck. When I asked him about the delay, he
said that he had closed for SSD. When I told him
that Aviation Core Team was mustered & he
should have come, he said that his name is not
in Aviations Core Team & that he is standby for
Prasad, Cook II. I asked him if he was aware
that Prasad was on leave. He said he was aware
of it. I asked him again that as he was standby
for Prasad and he knew he was on leave, he
should have closed up. To this he replied that
Chief Writer has told him that as there are only
2 writers onboard, they will not do any duty. I
told him to get Chief Writer to helo deck. He
then replied that Chief Writer is not onboard & is
admitted in hospital. Then I told him to remain
on helo deck & once Aviations Core Team is
secured, write a statement saying “he came late
to helo hanger because Chief Writer had told him
not to do any duty.” He then became more
aggressive & shouted upon me that “I will not
write any statement, Chief Writer is
hospitalized.”. I told him again that it does not
make any difference whether Chief Writer is
onboard or not, he must write a statement at
end of Flying Stations. He now shouted on the
top of his voice saying “Chief Sahab is
admitted”. I then lost my cool and shouted back
at him abusing him. He then hit me with his fist(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (11 of 39) [CW-82/2025]on my left cheek & abused me. I did not shout
at him further or even touch him, I called a
Regulating Sailor who was in Helo Hanger & told
him to take Karthik, Writer to Executive Officer
in bridge. I told the whole episode to the
Executive Officer & EXO took us to Commanding
Officer and I apprised him of the situation. After
this I was asked to go to helo deck by EXO &
ensure safe recovery of SC-560. I composed
myself & went to the helo deck for recovering
SC-560. After this when at 1400 hrs. Aviation
Core Team was asked to muster in helo deck
again, Karthik, Writer I did not come to helo
deck once against. I asked POA (AH) Gupta to
announce for him & went to oversee the ground
run of SC-560. Post ground run, I was told by
POA(AH) Gupta that Karthik, Writer did not come
for Aviation Core Team again. I do not think that
such an offence should be accepted by anyone
and the most strict possible action be taken
against the sailor. It was with this faith in Indian
Navy that I did not hit the sailor back and I hope
that my faith in the system remains so.”
17. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that on the
basis of above said complaint, R. Karthik faced investigation
and a formal inquiry was conducted for charges under
Section 45(a) of the Act of 1957. As a result, after summary
court martial proceedings, he was punished with
imprisonment for 60 days, deprivation of his First Good
Conduct Badge and dismissal from service. Due to the
above serious conduct and having a charge of Section 45(a)
of the Act of 1957, the Chief of Naval Staff, in the statutory
petition filed under Section 162 and 163 of the Act of 1957,
did not make any interference with the punishment.
However, when the order of punishment was challenged
before the learned AFT, the learned Tribunal, after
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, held
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (12 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
that the sentence of dismissal from service was
disproportionate. Consequently, the learned Tribunal
maintained the punishment of imprisonment of 75 days, as
R. Karthik had already undergone and therefore, allowed
the O.A., by quashing the punishment of dismissal from
service being disproportionate. The order of learned
Tribunal was challenged before the High Court and
thereafter before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing the
Criminal Appeal No. 831/2015 titled as Union of India &
Ors. vs. R. Karthik. The issue attained finality as the Hon’ble
Apex Court vide order dated 21.01. 2020 dismissed the said
appeal of Union of India.
The relevant paragraph of the judgment passed by
learned AFT passed in R. Karthik (supra), as cited by the
learned Senior Counsel reads as under:-
“11. We find that the Commanding Officer who
was on the high seas with the Sailor and the
superior officer was aware of the extent of
misconduct of the Sailor. None of the three
witnesses have deposed regarding striking of the
superior officer by the Sailor. The superior officer
has not made himself available before the
Investigating Officer or the Executive Officer.
12. Even though, the superior officer has used
abusive language but the Sailor was not expected
to retort and hit the superior officer. The conduct
of the Sailor cannot be condoned in any manner.
13. In terms of provisions of the AFT Act, the
Tribunal is competent to substitute the findings in
the disciplinary proceedings leading to dismissal
of the Sailor and to substitute and/or mitigate the
punishment awarded. Therefore, the order passed(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (13 of 39) [CW-82/2025]by the Tribunal to set aside the dismissal is within
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal finding that the
punishment imposed is disproportionate to the
misconduct. This Court in appellate jurisdiction
under Section 30 of the AFT Act would be slow in
interfering with the substituted punishment,
unless the order passed by the Tribunal is found
to be arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious. We
find that the view taken by the Tribunal is not
patently illegal warranting interference in the
present appeal. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
14. However, it is directed that the respondent
shall be reinstated within two months but shall
not be entitled to any back wages from the date
of dismissal till reinstatement but he shall be
entitled to computation of all consequential
benefits including pay fixation.”
18. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that despite
the charge under Section 45(a) of the Act of 1957, the
learned AFT had declared the punishment of dismissal from
service to be disproportionate, and consequently, the said
person was reinstated in service by the respondents herein.
19. Learned Senior Counsel further referred to the case of
the Sailor Nitesh Rai, who was also charged in respect of a
similar unfortunate incident in May 2013, like R Karthik. In
the said case, Sailor Nitesh Rai, who was enrolled in Navy in
the year 2011, was charged under Section 45 (a) of the Act
of 1957 in respect of an incident that occurred on
09.05.2013. After conducting the proceedings, he was also
punished with dismissal from service. The order of dismissal
was initially challenged by way of a statutory petition, which
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (14 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
was dismissed. Thereafter, the learned AFT, while deciding
the O.A. filed by Sailor Nitesh Rai, allowed the O.A.
observing that the incident occurred on account of the fact
that the Sailor retaliated under extreme provocation in self
defense and that the punishment of dismissal was
disproportionate and extremely harsh. Further, he had
already served the punishment of imprisonment and
therefore, while allowing the O.A., Sailor Nitesh Rai was
ordered to be reinstated in the service.
20. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
order passed by the learned AFT, Lucknow, in the case of
Nitesh Rai, was also challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in Criminal Misc. Petition No.16083/2016 in Criminal
Appeal Diary No.32883/2016, and the Court dismissed the
appeal of the Union of India vide its order dated
29.09.2016, holding that there was no substantial question
of law and made no interference in the appeal and
accordingly, the same was dismissed.
21. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in both
the cases of R. Karthik and Nitesh Rai, the charges were of
striking a superior officer under section 45(a) of the Act of
1957, and the two learned AFTs i.e., Chennai and Lucknow,
in respect of the incidents as occurred in both the cases, at
the same time, made interference in the order of
punishment on the ground that they were disproportionate.
Noting the fact that both the personnel had already
undergone the period of imprisonment, the learned Tribunal
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (15 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
quashed the punishment of dismissal from service and
ordered for reinstatement. Both matters attained finality
after the Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to interfere with
the orders of respectie learned AFTs.
22. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
punishments imposed in the cases of R. Karthik and Nitesh
Rai, which involved charges similar to the present case, also
reflects excessive and disproportionate punishment in the
facts and circumstances of the case. He further contended
that the present case requires interference of this Court in
the same manner as was done by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the cases of R. Karthik and Nitesh Rai. Therefore the
punishment of dismissal from service imposed vide
impugned order dated 31.10.2013 deserves to be
modified/quashed and the petitioner needs to be reinstated
in service, similar to aforementioned two cases.
23. In response, the learned Additional Solicitor General,
Mr. Bharat Vyas, assisted by Senior Panel Counsel, Mr. P.C.
Sharma, Ms. Anima Chaturvedi and Ms. Arpita Joshi
strongly opposed the submissions made by the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.P. Singh. Learned
ASG Mr. Vyas submitted that the present case does not
warrant any interference by this Court under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case.
24. Learned ASG further contended that the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner has confined his
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (16 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
arguments regarding the quantum of punishment by relying
upon the cases of R. Karthik and Nitesh Rai. However, both
the cases are not comparable with the present matter, as
the circumstances and facts of the present case are
different. The conduct of the petitioner, as noted by the One
Man Inquiry in the Summary Court Martial Proceedings and
considered by the learned Tribunal, after examining all
materials, including the evidence of the petitioner and other
material witnesses, leaves no doubt about the serious
conduct of the petitioner and therefore, he was rightly
punished.
25. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vyas further contended
that, although the charge under Section 45(a) of the Act of
1957 was same in the case of R. Karthik and Nitesh Rai,
however the petitioner, cannot claim parity just being the
charges are same, as every case must to be examined and
decided on its own merits.
26. To show the conduct of the petitioner herein, the
learned ASG specifically referred to the medical report of
the said superior officer, Lt. Cdr. Brajesh Kumar which is as
under:-
“MEDICAL REPORT Lt. Cdr. Brajesh Kumar – 113
CONFIDENTIAL
CASUALTY/PATIENT”s PARTICULAR BROUGHT BY
Name: Lt Car Brajesh Kumar Name Self
Rank: Lt Cdr Age
Age: 33yr Unit
Unit: INS Savitri P.No.
ID Marks: Scar mark on Left(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (17 of 39) [CW-82/2025]Eyebrow
P.NO.42577
Diagnosis: Blunt injury nose bleeding, blunt injury
left cheek, left shoulder.
33yr old serving officer, reposted on board sickbay (in his carter)
with h/o alleged hit by a sailor over nose & cheek at his cabin at
around 1000HR
C/o pain over nose, cheek (r) side
H/o bleeding from both nostril (r)
Pain (R) shoulder,
No H/o Loss of conscious, ear bleed
Blood stain in mouth (R)
o/E Restless, moderately built x nourished
Conscious, No sign PICCLE
P-110/min BP-160/04 mmhg RR 30bpm
RS NIBS (r) Rpt. 138/84mmtta
Cvs-S1 S2® Trachpyndra (R)
General Features – Bleeding from nostril both (R)
Blood in mouth bleeding from nose plraid
Bruise over Nose c
Bruise x swelling over L Cheek and beside eye and tympanum &
temporal bone
Blunt injury (L) shoulder
Rom-fell painful
Ice pack application nose & Shoulder(L), lympanyx
Control of bleeding from nostril
Inj Voveran 3ml 1msht
Pt detains > Discharged D/o tomorrow”
27. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Medical
Officer was examined in respect of the injuries sustained by
superior officer. The Medical Officer, in his statement before
One Man Inquiry, clearly stated about injuries as suffered by
the superior officer. The statement of the doctor, as
recorded by the One-Man Inquiry, being relevant, referred
by the learned ASG, reads as under:
“Statement of Surgeon Lt. Sudarshan Naik
76085-W(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (18 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
1. I hereby state that on 27 May 2013 at about
0900hr Yashpal Yadav, MEI, No. 221074-T reported
sick directly without approval from his Divisional
Officer Lt Cdr Brajesh Kumar, No. 424556-T. I asked
him to get the initial of his DO on sick parade book. At
about 1000hr I heard a prolonged shout. I came out
my cabin to investigate the same. At this point, I saw
a person in uniform running down the ladder between
Engineering Officer cabin and Electrical officer cabin.
As I followed the person, I heard an announcement for
me to report in Engineering Officers cabin. When I
reached the cabin, I saw a pool of blood on the
floor and some sailors helping Lt-Cdr Brajesh
Kumar (424556-T) to lie down on his bed in his
cabin. There was heavy bleed from his nose. The
officer was not able to breath properly, not able
to speak. On examination it revealed contusion
and bruises on his left temporal bone, cheek, on
the side of the eyes associated with swelling. I
resuscitated him, bleeding was controlled with
light nose pack and ice pack application. His
blood pressure was found to be high (160/94
mmHg) which got reduced after the treatment.
Later when he was able, he complained of pain
in opening mouth and pain in left shoulder. His
injuries were sever in nature and these injuries
would have been caused because of strike by a
hard object may be a punch.
2. Between 1130hr to 1200hr on 27 May 13 Yashpal
Yadav, MEI 221074-T was brought to me for medical
examination after the reported incident of man
handling. On his medical examination it was revealed
abrasion of left forearm and abrasion on left middle
finger (may be a nail mark). He also complained of
pain in right thumb which after X-ray suggested no
abnormalities. These were only superficial.”
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (19 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
28. The above quoted statement indicates that the said
Medical Officer noted that the Lt. Cdr Brajesh Kumar was
bleeding severely and was unable to breath due to the
injuries sustained. In view of the specific and clear
statement of the Medical Officer, it is evident that the
petitioner committed serious insubordination and caused
serious injuries to the Senior Officer, Lt. Cdr. Brajesh Kumar.
Such conduct cannot be taken lightly, as the Armed Forces
are known for their strict discipline and subordination.
29. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
cases of Nitesh Rai and R. Karthik are not comparable to the
present case, as in both cases, the superior officers did not
suffer injuries of the nature as sustained by the superior
officer in the present case. Learned Senior Counsel further
contended that the facts of the cases of R. Karthik and
Nitesh Rai did not impress the learned Tribunal to interfere
with the order of punishment as passed in the present case.
In the present case, the learned Tribunal considered all the
relevant statements including the medical report and
thereafter, concluded that no interference(variation) in the
order of punishment passed against the petitioner can be
made.
30. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Vyas further referred
to the Section 45(a) of the Navy Act, 1957, which
specifically provides for the charge of striking a superior
officer, following the procedure laid down under the Act. The
punishment was imposed on the petitioner after due
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (20 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
consideration of all the facts and circumstances. He further
argued that the power of this Court in judicial review, while
examining court martial proceedings, is very limited and the
law in this regard is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following
judgments:-
1. Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque
(AIR 1955 SC 233)
2. Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai (AIR 2003
SC 3004)
3. Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath (AIR 2015 SC
3269)
4. K. Valarmathi Vs. Kkumaresan (2025 INSC 606)
31. Learned ASG Mr. Bharat Vyas further submitted that it
is only on the basis of cases of R. Karthik and Nitesh Rai
that the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has tried
to draw parity with regard to the punishment, on the
ground that charge in both the cases were also under
Section 45(a) of the Act of 1957. The learned Senior
Counsel has also tried to distinguish the case of R. Karthik
and Nitesh Rai from the case of present petitioner. Learned
ASG has set out the following distinctions between present
petitioner and R. Karthik, which is as under:-
FACTUAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN OA NO. 137 OF 2014
YASHPAL YADAV VS UOI (AFT JAIPUR) AND OA NO 45 OF 2014
R KARTHIK VS UOI (AFT CHENNAI)
YASHPAL YADAV R KARTIK
(Petitioner herein)
The evidence available on record In the case of R Kartik, the
that is the statement of the complainant was Lt. Abhishek
complainant was Lt. Cdr. Brajesh Wardhan. Based on the complaint
Kumar, the Medical Officer, Surg received from Lt. Abhishek
Lt. Cdr. Sudarshan Nayak and Wardhan the investigations were(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (21 of 39) [CW-82/2025]other witnesses who reached the conducted accordingly.
scene Immediately after the
incident on hearing the officers
cry for help supported by the As per Para 3 of Hon’ble Supreme
medical documents clearly Court Judgment “only three
establish the offence of striking witnesses were examined (Ganesh
superior officer beyond doubt. Kumar Tiwari, Tara Chand Nehra
and Vikash Sharma). As per the
observations of the Hon’ble Court
the three witnesses were
examined before the investigating
officer, executive officer and all
three witnesses denied the
Incident as alleged in the
complaint submitted by Lt.
Abhishek Wardhan.”
Lt. Abhishek Wardhan was
neither cited as a witness nor
was examined either by the
investigating officer or the
executive officer.
As per para 9 of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court judgment “none
of the three witnesses
deposed regarding hitting of
superior officer by the sailor.
The superior officer Lt. Abhishek
Wardhan was examined neither
before the investigating officer or
the executive officer nor he has
been made available for cross
examination as per the
proceedings produced before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
From the perusal of the medical As per Para 12 & 13 of the L’d AFT
document along with the (RB), Chennai order, the L’d AFT
statement of medical officer and has categorically mentioned that
other witnesses it was evident “It is clear that the complainant
that the accused used physical had given a statement and that
aggression and force towards complainant himself was not
his superior officer brought before the accused for
intentionally. Though, there was cross examination. All other
no direct evidence of witnesses witnesses who were brought
having witnessed the incident of before the Trial have denied
striking, however the perusal of having seen or heard anything
the medical report was indicative of the incident except to say
that the injury occurred to the that Lt Vardhan and Karthik
officer was due to striking by the were talking to each other,
accused. Further, the evidence Therefore, the only admissible
indicated that the accused ran evidence produced was the
out of the cabin of the officer acceptance of guilt by the
which was noticed by other applicant himself through his
witnesses. This revealed the statement that he was provoked
guilty mind of the accused. by the officer for using abusive
language and that was why he
had lost his cool and hit the
officer.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (22 of 39) [CW-82/2025]It appears that the inquiry has
been done in a hammered
manner and it ought to have
been done more deliberately
to bring the facts of the case
before the commanding
officer.”
The evidence on record was
circumstantial in nature and
indicative of a serious offence
committed by the accused by
using physical aggression and
striking a superior officer.
By various accounts, the sailor’s
performance onboard had been
less than satisfactory. He was
argumentative, rude and
aggressive in nature. He had
picked up arguments with his
superiors in the past and had, on
occasions, flared up for seemingly
minor issues. Towards this Yashpal
Yadav, ME I, 221074-T was
continuously briefed by the
Departmental Regulator and
counselled for improving his
behaviour.
As per the service records of the As per para 5 of the order “the
sailor he has been stubborn and Tribunal found that the use of
argumentative in his approach force by the sailor was not per-
and on numerous counts he meditated or deliberate but was a
displayed insubordination and consequence of provocation in the
disobeyed his superiors. (Para 7 of form of use of abusive language
the AFT Order is relevant) by a superior officer.”
He was counselled by his
divisional officer on 17 May 12
and 03 Sep 12 and was advised to
improve his conduct.
As per the endorsement by his
divisional officers in his service
document (Jun 12) it is stated
that “Sailor has issues with
behaviour and mannerism.
The audacity of the accused to As per para 12 of the said
physically assault a superior judgment the Honourable court
officer does not behove marks of has observed that “even though
respect/adherence of discipline the superior officer has used
which is expected from uniformed abusive language but the sailor
person. On board a ship where a was not expected to retort and hit
men are also used to be with the superior officer. The conduct
arms, this kind of attitude or of the sailor cannot be condoned
action is highly detrimental to the in any manner.”
team spirit and uniformed
cohesion. (Para 8 of the AFT Order
is relevant)
Page 75 till 82 of the one-man(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (23 of 39) [CW-82/2025]inquiry proceedings are relevant.
The same consists of the findings,
attributability of blame and the
recommendations.(Para 7 of the
AFT Order is relevant)
33. In view of the above clear differences between the two
cases, learned ASG Mr. Vyas submitted that the facts of the
cases of R. Karthik and Nitesh Rai (supra) are different from
those of the present case and therefore, are not
comparable. Consequently, the relief as granted in those
cases cannot be granted to the present petitioner. In the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the
learned ASG, in conclusion, prayed for dismissal of the
present writ petition.
34. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
35. The facts of this case concerns the issue of serious
insubordination in law by a person in uniform, resulting in
grievous physical injuries to a senior officer while on duty.
While making submissions, the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.
R.P. Singh, specifically confined his arguments to the
quantum of punishment by contending that it was seriously
disproportionate and provided certain factual background to
support his arguments. Learned Senior Counsel tried to
draw comparison with the cases of R. Karthik (supra) and
Nitesh Rai (supra) with the present case, as they were also
Sailors and faced similar charges under Section 45(a) of the
Act of 1957 at same time, i.e., in May 2013. In both cases,
after being summarily tried, both the Sailors, similar to the
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (24 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
present petitioner, were punished with imprisonment for a
certain period and dismissal from service. This Court noted
that the punishment of imprisonment, for certain period,
and dismissal from service, is same in all the three cases.
36. This Court, before proceeding further, has also
examined the provisions of the Navy Act, 1957. Section
45(a) provides that every person subject to naval law and
who strikes or attempts to strike his superior officer shall be
punished with imprisonment. In case of active service, the
punishment may extend to ten years or such other
punishment as prescribed under the law. Section 45(a) of
the Act of 1957, reads as under:-
“45. Striking Superior officers–Every person
subject to naval law who commits any of the
following offences that is to say,–
(a) strikes or attempts to strike his superior
officer; or
(b) draws or lifts up any weapon against such
officer; or
(c) uses or attempts to use any violence against
such officer, shall be punished,– if the offence is
committed on active service with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to ten years or such
other punishment as is hereinafter mentioned;
and in any other case, with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to five years or such
other punishment as is hereinafter mentioned.”
37. This Court further noted that the petitioner was
working as a Sailor and the officer in question was
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (25 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
admittedly a very senior officer. The superior officer was
treated for the injuries as suffered and the Medical Officer,
who treated him specifically stated (as quoted in the above
paras) that the officer was seriously bleeding and was
unable to breathe. The petitioner did not deny the injuries
suffered by the officer, however, he attempted to portray
the entire incident as a scuffle between the two due to
sudden provocation, claiming that he also suffered certain
injuries.
38. This Court, however, noted that the injuries suffered
by the officer were serious, whereas the petitioner did not
suffer any serious injuries in that unfortunate incident dated
27.05.2013 though he remained in hospital for certain
period. A One-Man Inquiry was conducted, which submitted
its report dated 11.06.2013. The One-Man Inquiry
Committee recorded the statements of the petitioner, the
injured senior officer and other relevant witnesses.
39. After examining the statements of the petitioner, the
injured officer, the Medical Officer, and the other witnesses
and considering the facts of the case of R. Karthik (supra)
and Nitesh Rai (supra) and the differences as pointed out by
learned ASG which quoted in the paragraphs above, this
Court noted that the superior officer in those two cases did
not suffer any serious injuries. Even in one case, the
superior officer did not make any statement against the
sailor. The only similarity noted by this Court is the alleged
use of abusive language, however, this Court fails to find
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (26 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
any other factual similarity between the present case and
aforementioned two cases. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.
R.P. Singh specifically pressed upon the punishment as
disproportionate. The peculiar facts noted in R. Karthik and
Nitesh Rai, which are different from the present case as
noted from the evidence as recorded in those cases.
40. The above three incidents namely, R. Karthik, Nitesh
Kumar and the present petitioner Yash Pal Yadav, all were
Sailors and charged under Section 45(a) of the Act of 1957.
After conducting Board of Inquiry, all three were punished
with dismissal from service. Subsequently, each challenged
the order of punishment before the respective learned
Tribunal. At this point, certain facts are somewhat common
in all three cases except the evidence of witnesses as
recorded, however, the findings recorded by the learned
Tribunal in the case of R Karthik (supra) notably which
reads as under:-
15. “It is a settled principle that in every case, facts and
circumstances vary and, therefore, a common
punishment for a similar offence cannot be made as a
rule which appears to have been the driving force in
recommendation of eventual dismissal of the applicant
from service. In the extant case, the use of force by
the applicant was not premeditated or deliberate
but was a consequence of provocation in the form
of use of abusive language by a superior officer. It
is admitted that it was a reflex action to the
provocation; the applicant had immediately cooled
down and owned up his mistake voluntarily. It is
also admitted that the officer had handled the situation(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (27 of 39) [CW-82/2025]poorly and the use of abusive language to subordinates
is an unbecoming act of an officer. To that extent, the
offence has to be viewed in the circumstances under
which it was committed and the mitigating factors that
have been brought before. It has also been admitted by
the respondents that Lt Abhishek Vardhan was found
guilty of an act of using profane/ abusive language
against the applicant under Section 74 of Naval Act 1957
(offences against good order and discipline) and was
given a punishment of “one month loss of seniority of
Lieutenant”.
16. It appears that the punishment given to the officer
was light in nature and, therefore, given the extenuating
circumstances under which the whole episode occurred,
the applicant’s plea for mitigation ought to have been
considered.”
41. The learned Tribunal in the case of R. Karthik quashed
the punishment, on the basis of evidence as recorded, in the
peculiar facts of the said case, which are clearly
distinguishable with the facts of the present case. Thereafter,
this Court noted the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal
in the case of the Nitesh Rai (supra). In that case, although
there was also insubordination and use of abusive language,
the learned Tribunal after considering all the facts and
circumstances including the prevailing conditions, while
noticing the conduct, specifically, held that Sailor R. Kathik
was unaware of the consequences of his misconduct. The
witnesses of the said case failed to make specific depositions
against the petitioner regarding striking the superior officer.
The maximum fact established by the learned Tribunal was
that the superior officer had not made himself available
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (28 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
before the Investigating Officer or the concerned officer.
After examining the complete conduct, the learned Tribunal,
quashed the order of dismissal from service, which was also
maintained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, in the
present case, the learned Tribunal, while considering the
Inquiry report, recorded the following findings in the
impugned order dated 05.11.2024, reproduced here as
under:-
“7. Perusal of One Man Inquiry Report reveals that
of the more than nine witnesses who deposed
before the Inquiry Committee, all of them have
narrated the rude behavior of the applicant herein
and none of them have deposed anything against
the Divisional Officer against whom the applicant
has made allegations. After extensive hearing, Lt.
Cdr. Brajesh Kumar, the applicant and the
independent witnesses, the One man Inquiry has
made the following recommendations based on the
statements of eye witnesses and documents
produced as there was no eye witness in the
Incident involving the incident between the
applicant and the officer concerned:-
“Based on the circumstantial evidence Yashpal
Yadav, MEI has been found blameworthy of
attacking a Superior Officer and therefore,
recommend strict disciplinary action against the
Sailor.
Lt Cdr. Brajesh Kumar has also been found
blameworthy of Inappropriately withdrawing the
applicant’s Identity Card and not allowing the laid
down procedure for stopping a Sailor’s leave, which
could have made the applicant to harbor grievance
against the said officer”.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (29 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
8.. It is evident from the foregoing that the
applicant was convicted for striking his superior
officer, viz, Lt. Cdr. Brajesh Kumar, on 27/5/2013
and was awarded the punishment of Rigorous
Imprisonment for 90 days, dismissal from Naval
service and deprivation of First Good Conduct
Badge. The applicant has voluntarily joined the
Navy to serve the nation. The primordial duty of the
armed forces of the Nation for which the Indian
Navy is a part, is to defend the country against
external aggression. In order to keep the forces as
a cohesive unit, discipline is an implicit hallmark
of the Armed Forces and a non negotiable
condition of service to be followed in true
letter and spirit. Any violation of discipline in the
Armed Forces shall create havoc and difficulty in its
day to day functioning. Therefore, the misconduct
of the applicant in striking his superior officer,
Irrespective of the fact that there was a
provocation, cannot be countenanced.
11. In view of the foregoing the action of the
applicant clearly testifies to blatant disregard for
discipline and Orders and Regulations and is
tantamount to wilfully flouting basic tenets of good
order and military discipline and deserves to be
dealt with appropriately as has been held by the
Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra). We,
therefore, find no Infirmity In the disciplinary
process nor any reason for interference in the
applicant’s dismissal from service. The prayer of the
applicant for reinstate in service has no merit and is
rejected.”
42. Though in the present case, the learned Tribunal
recorded that there was no eye witness to the incident and
also noted that the conduct of the officer, Lt. Cdr. Brajesh
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (30 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
Kumar, was found to be blameworthy for his
disproportionate actions, including withholding approval of
leave, however, the act of causing serious assault to
superior officer, as noted from the medical report and the
statement of the medical officer, clearly distinguishes the
present case from the facts of R Karthik (supra) and
Nitesh Rai (supra).
43. Considering the clear factual distinctions, as pointed
out by the learned ASG Mr. Bharat Vyas, with the assistance
of Senior Panel Counsel Mr. P.C. Sharma and as noted from
the record placed for the perusal of the Court including the
facts of the above cases, this Court has reached to a
definite conclusion that the cases of R Karthik (supra) and
Nitesh Rai (supra) are not comparable with the present
case and the petitioner cannot claim any parity in regard to
the punishment awarded and its quashment on the ground
that charges were same.
44. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the law
regarding the power of judicial review in the disciplinary
matters. It is well settled that interference cannot be made
unless the punishment is disproportionate to the facts and
circumstances of the case, the procedure has not been
followed, or the authority imposing the punishment was not
competent. As far as the procedure aspect is concerned, no
infirmity has been pointed out. To say in other way, the
procedure has not been questioned by the petitioner and
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (31 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
there is no allegation of denial of a proper opportunity of
hearing.
45. The only issue which remains is with regard to the
quantum of punishment, the above law specifically provides
that it is not the duty of the Court to advice or suggest
what punishment should be imposed by the disciplinary
authorities while examining and deciding the disciplinary
matters. It is the domain left by the Legislature with the
authorities, and the same cannot be interfered with unless
the situation so demands.
46. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India and Ors. Vs. Ex-Constable Daya Shankar Rai in
Civil Appeal No.3487/2018 decided on 02.04.2018, has
reiterated the settled principles governing judicial review in
disciplinary matters, which held as under:-
“In view of the serious nature of injuries and the fact
that the respondent belongs to a disciplined force, we
are of the view that the High Court was far too liberal
in reducing the penalty of dismissal to that of
stoppage of three increments.
Learned Additional Solicitor General has drawn our
attention to Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and
Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others [(2006) 1
SCC 430] where a superior officer had been assaulted
(not in a disciplined force but in a school) with a
chappal. On hearing the parties, this Court took the
view that an assault on a superior officer should
attract severe penalty.
We are in agreement with the view expressed, more
particularly in a case where the present, as
respondent belonged to a disciplined force and used
the butt of the rifle for injuring a superior officer very(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (32 of 39) [CW-82/2025]seriously. Under the circumstances, we set aside the
order passed by the High Court and restore the
departmental punishment of dismissal from service on
the respondent.”
47. In the above case of Ex-Constable Daya Shankar
Rai (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while quashing the
order of the High Court, maintained the order of
punishment of dismissal from service. The Court observed
that where serious injuries are inflicted upon a superior
official, a liberal or lenient approach cannot be adopted,
particularly in matters relating to disciplined forces, so as to
reduce the punishment of dismissal by substituting it with
any lesser punishment. In the above case, Hon’ble Supreme
Court relied upon the judgment passed in the case of
Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and Anr. Vs. State of
Karnataka & Ors., reported in (2006) 1 SCC 430, decided
on 16.12.2005, where the Court specifically held that when
the assault is on a superior officer, the employee deserves
to be severely punished as such misconduct cannot be
condoned. The relevant paras of the judgment as passed in
the case of Hombe Gowda (supra) reads as under:-
“19. Assaulting a superior at a workplace amounts to
an act of gross indiscipline. The respondent is a
teacher. Even under grave provocation a teacher is not
expected to abuse the head of the institution in a
filthy language and assault him with a chappal.
Punishment of dismissal from services, therefore,
cannot be said to be wholly disproportionate so as to
shock one’s conscience.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (33 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
20. A person, when dismissed from service, is put to a
great hardship but that would not mean that a grave
misconduct should go unpunished. Although the
doctrine of proportionality may be applicable in such
matters, but a punishment of dismissal from service
for such a misconduct cannot be said to be unheard
of. Maintenance of discipline of an institution is equally
important. Keeping the aforementioned principles in
view, we may hereinafter notice a few recent
decisions of this Court.
21. In Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah
Mazdoor Sangh this Court held: (SCC pp. 212-13,
para 29)
“29. This leaves us to consider whether the
punishment of dismissal awarded to the
workmen concerned dehors the allegation of
extortion is disproportionate to the misconduct
proved against them. From the evidence
proved, we find the workmen concerned
entered the Estate armed with deadly weapons
with a view to gherao the manager and others,
in that process they caused damage to the
property of the Estate and wrongfully confined
the manager and others from 8.30 p.m. on
12th of October to 3 a.m. on the next day.
These charges, in our opinion, are grave
enough to attract the punishment of dismissal
even without the aid of the allegation of
extortion. The fact that the management
entered into settlement with some of the
workmen who were also found guilty of the
charge would not, in any manner, reduce the
gravity of the misconduct in regard to the
workmen concerned in this appeal because
these workmen did not agree with the
settlement to which others agreed, instead
chose to question the punishment.”
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (34 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
22. Yet again in Muriadih Colliery v. Bihar Colliery
Kamgar Union the law has been laid down in the
following terms: (SCC p. 335, para 13)
“13. It is well-established principle in law that
in a given circumstance it is open to the
Industrial Tribunal acting under Section 11-A
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has the
jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment
awarded in the domestic inquiry for good and
valid reasons. If the Tribunal decides to
Interfere with such punishment it should bear
in mind the principle of proportionality
between the gravity of the offence and the
stringency of the punishment. In the instant
case it is the finding of the Tribunal which is
not disturbed by the writ courts that the two
workmen involved in this appeal along with the
others formed themselves into an unlawful
assembly, armed with deadly weapons, went
to the office of the General Manager and
assaulted him and his colleagues causing them
injuries. The injuries suffered by the General
Manager were caused by lathi on the head.
The fact that the victim did not die is not a
mitigating circumstance to reduce the
sentence of dismissal.”
23. In V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC relying upon a large
number of decisions, this Court opined: (SCC p. 348,
paras 11-12)
“11. The common thread running through in all
these decisions is that the court should not
interfere with the administrator’s decision
unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural
Impropriety or was shocking to the conscience
of the court, in the sense that it was in
defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (35 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
what has been stated in Wednesbury cases the
court would not go into the correctness of the
choice made by the administrator open to him
and the court should not substitute its decision
for that of the administrator. The scope of
judicial review is limited to the deficiency in
decision-making process and not the decision.
12. To put it differently unless the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority or the
Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of
the court/tribunai, there is no scope for
interference. Further to shorten litigation it
may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose
appropriate punishment by recording cogent
reasons in support thereof. In a normal course
if the punishment imposed is shockingly
disproportionate it would be appropriate to
direct the disciplinary authority or the Appellate
Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed.”
24. In Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar
Nakates it was held: (SCC p. 499, paras 30-32)
“30. Furthermore, it is trite, the Labour Court or the
Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, in terms of the
provisions of the Act, must act within the four corners
thereof. The Industrial Courts would not sit in appeal
over the decision of the employer unless there exists a
statutory provision in this behalf. Although its
jurisdiction is wide but the same must be applied in
terms of the provisions of the statute and no other.
31. If the punishment is harsh, albeit a lesser
punishment may be imposed, but such an order
cannot be passed on an irrational or extraneous factor
and certainly not on a compassionate ground.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (36 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
32. In Regional Manager, Rajasthan SRTC v. Sohan Lall
it has been held that it is not the normal jurisdiction of
the superior courts to interfere with the quantum of
sentence unless it is wholly disproportionate to the
misconduct proved. Such is not the case herein. In the
facts and circumstances of the case and having regard
to the past conduct of the respondent as also his
conduct during the domestic enquiry proceedings, we
cannot say that the quantum of punishment imposed
upon the respondent was wholly disproportionate to
his act of misconduct or otherwise arbitrary.”
25. In M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra
Sharma” this Court held: (SCC P. 408, para 9)
“9. In the case on hand, the employee has
been found guilty of hitting and injuring his
superior officer at the workplace, obviously in
the presence of other employees. This clearly
amounted to breach of discipline in the
organisation. Discipline at the workplace in an
organisation like the employer herein, is the
sine qua non for the efficient working of the
organisation. When an employee breaches such
discipline and the employer terminates his
services, it is not open to a Labour Court or an
Industrial Tribunal to take the view that the
punishment awarded is shockingly
disproportionate to the charge proved. We
have already referred to the views of this
Court. To quote Jack Chan,
‘discipline is a form of civilly responsible
behaviour which helps maintain social
order and contributes to the preservation,
if not advancement, of collective interests
of society at large.’
Obviously this idea is more relevant in
considering the working of an organisation like
the employer herein or an industrial
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (37 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
undertaking Obedience to authority in a
workplace is not slavery. It is not violative of
one’s natural rights. It is essential for the
prosperity of the organisation as well as that of
its employees. When in such a situation, a
punishment of termination is awarded for
hitting and injuring a superior officer
supervising the work of the employee, with no
extenuating circumstance established, it cannot
be said to be not justified. It cannot certainly
be termed unduly harsh or disproportionate.
The Labour Court and the High Court in this
case totally misdirected themselves while
exercising their jurisdiction. The Industrial
Court made the correct approach and came to
the right conclusion.”
48. In view of the above judgments and while considering
the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.P.
Singh that parity in punishment ought to be maintained
when the charges are similar to the cases of R. Karthik and
Nitesh Rai, this Court seriously disagree with the said
argument as the petitioner is claiming parity in punishment,
more so in a case of serious insubordination and striking a
senior officer of the Uniformed Forces and causing serious
injuries when the facts are not comparable. The forces are
known for their strict discipline and any act of
insubordination or violation of rules would disturb and
frustrate the complete object for which the forces have
been constituted, the tasks they are required to perform.
There cannot be a liberal approach in cases involving
striking a superior officer and causing serious injuries more
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (38 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
so after carefully noticing serious injuries caused to the said
officer from the record, as caused by petitioner, noted from
the medical report, which remains uncontroverted and
proved on record.
49. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we
would not like to make any interference with the
punishment as awarded. The learned Senior Counsel has
sought to raise the issue that the conduct of the superior
officer was also inappropriate and the same should have
been considered by the learned Tribunal while examining
the issue of disproportionate punishment. However, this
Court is of the view that even if the superior officer was at
fault to some extent in regard to his conduct, the same
cannot confer any right to a subordinate person in the
uniformed forces to cause any bodily injury to superior
officer.
50. If the Courts start interfering with the punishment on
the ground that the superior officer is at fault, it would give
a right to the subordinate to strike the superior officer. This
would further lead to serious disciplinary issues among the
subordinate persons in the uniformed forces. As already
stated, such forces are required to function under strict
discipline and for maintaining the same, superior officers
are required to act and maintain strict and tough disciplined
environment. Any leniency or liberal approach with regard
to punishment would create serious problems and would
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8103-DB] (39 of 39) [CW-82/2025]
make it difficult for the forces to discharge their duties
towards the nation.
51. In view of the above discussion, we are not inclined to
make any interference in the impugned order dated
05.11.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal and
consequently the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands
dismissed.
52. Pending Application(s) is any, also stands disposed of.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J
PAYAL DHAWAN/65
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:51:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:45:35 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)