19 November 27 2025

FIGHTING HIS OWN CASE, YOUNG CADET WINS: HIGH COURT SETS ASIDE ARBITRARY TERMINATION

1. FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner, an ex–Flight Cadet, had successfully cleared the National Defence Academy examination and completed his training before joining the Air Force Academy in the Logistics Branch. During his training, he developed serious acne and was administered Isotretinoin. Subsequently, he began experiencing psychiatric symptoms including anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance and suicidal tendencies, for which he received treatment at a Military Hospital and was placed in a low medical category. In January 2024, an incident occurred involving the alleged misplacement of a Hand Held Monitor (HHM) issued for training purposes. Following an informal investigation and the proceedings of a Training Review Board (TRB), the petitioner’s training and cadetship were terminated on the ground of serious indiscipline amounting to theft. Aggrieved by this action, he approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
The primary allegation against the petitioner was that he had committed theft of Hand Held Monitors on two occasions. It was alleged that he was found in possession of another cadet’s HHM and, on another occasion, had replaced one cadet’s HHM with that of another. CCTV footage and written statements recorded during the informal investigation were relied upon to establish these allegations. Based on this, the authorities treated his conduct as “serious indiscipline” under the applicable Air Force Order and concluded that he lacked officer-like qualities, warranting termination of his training.

3. ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT
The central issue before the Court was whether the termination of the petitioner’s training on the charge of theft was legal, fair and proportionate, particularly in light of his medical condition and alleged lack of dishonest intention. The Court was also required to determine whether the disciplinary proceedings complied with the principles of natural justice and whether the punishment imposed was so disproportionate as to warrant judicial interference under Article 226.

4. LAW AND JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON
The Court examined the provisions of Air Force Order No. 30 of 2015, especially those relating to serious indiscipline, powers of the Training Review Board, and guiding principles for awarding punishment. The petitioner relied on several Supreme Court judgments on proportionality, intention in misconduct, and reformative justice. The respondents relied on precedents limiting the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. The Court also referred to settled principles that while judicial review does not permit re-appreciation of evidence, it does allow interference where punishment is shockingly disproportionate, perverse, or arbitrary.

5. COURT’S OBSERVATIONS
The Court extensively examined the medical records and witness statements recorded during the informal investigation. It noted that multiple witnesses had confirmed the petitioner’s disturbed mental condition, including suicidal tendencies, confusion and anxiety during the relevant period. The medical evidence clearly showed that the petitioner was suffering from depression and anxiety at the time of the alleged incident. The Court observed that there was no material to establish any deliberate or dishonest intention to commit theft. The conduct appeared to be an outcome of mental distress and confusion rather than criminal intent. The Court also held that the petitioner had an otherwise spotless record and strong academic and training performance. It found that the disciplinary action was purely punitive and ignored the reformative principles mandated by the Air Force Order itself.

6. DECISION OF THE COURT
The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the termination order. It held that the punishment imposed was strikingly disproportionate, irrational and perverse. The Court concluded that the alleged act at best amounted to negligence or an error of judgment influenced by psychological distress and did not justify the extreme penalty of termination. The Court directed the authorities to issue consequential orders and extend all service benefits to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of submission of the certified copy of the judgment.

7. FIGHTING A CASE WITHOUT A LAWYER
This case highlights both the strengths and limitations of fighting a legal battle without professional legal representation. On the positive side, the petitioner, appearing in person, was able to clearly present his medical history, personal circumstances, and factual narrative directly before the Court. Self-representation can reduce financial burden, promote personal involvement, and sometimes evoke judicial sensitivity. However, the disadvantages are equally significant. Legal proceedings involve complex procedural rules, technical arguments, and interpretation of laws and precedents that may be difficult for a layperson to handle effectively. A trained lawyer could structure arguments more strategically, anticipate counter-submissions, and avoid procedural lapses. Although the petitioner succeeded in this case due to strong documentary and medical evidence, self-representation generally carries high risks and may not always lead to a favorable outcome.
_________________________________
DATE OF DECISION: 27 NOVEMBER 2025
CASE NUMBER: W.P.(C) 11657/2024

Author

avatar
Adv. ALOK KUMAR
Advocate Serving Delhi NCR
Delhi High Court & District Courts
LL.B.▪︎Faculty of Law▪︎Delhi University


Comments are not allowed on this article.