Home > Recent Judgements > Compensation For An Air Force Official Who Was Surpassed By A Senior’s Vehicle And Faced Unnecessary Litigation: Supreme Court
Oct 25, 2024
BACKGROUND
In the case of S.P. Pandey versus Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court heard a case in which the appellant was reproached, and an admonition order was passed against him for overtaking his senior’s vehicle at the railway crossings. He was in the armed forces, and his senior was a Squadron Leader. However, the appellant was granted relief by the Armed Forces Tribunal but denied compensation for the harassment he faced during the unnecessary litigation process he went through for this trivial dispute that could have been mutually settled.
ISSUES
- Whether the punishment of admonition imposed on the appellant was justified?
- Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation for the harassment caused by unnecessary litigation?
JUDGEMENT
The court called the punishment of admonition against the appellant as unjustified and uncalled for. The court held that such instances of small excesses like overtaking the vehicle of a senior at a railway crossing may be an incident of indiscipline in defense services but such minor infractions should not be disproportionately escalated.
The Supreme Court considered the fact that the appellant suffered a loss of dignity and wasted an ample amount of time in contesting the unnecessary litigation and held that the appellant was entitled to compensation and ordered a compensation of Rupees One Lakh to the appellant. The court also highlighted that the institution failed to protect the appellant exacerbating the situation.
OBSERVATION
The court observed that this was a small incident that escalated beyond proportion and there was also an element of vindictiveness in the action taken against the appellant. The court noted that the incident could have been resolved at an earlier stage if senior officials had intervened at the right time as a simple apology or intervention could have resolved the matter. It further remarked that the case reflects a failure of institutional mechanisms to address minor incidents, giving rise to unnecessary litigation.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
