The sailor was awarded 90 days’ rigorous imprisonment, dismissal from naval service and withdrawal of good conduct badge. (Image generated using AI)Rajasthan High Court Navy news: The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the dismissal of a naval sailor for assaulting his superior officer, underscoring that discipline in the armed forces cannot be diluted under any circumstances.A bench of Justices Inderjeet Singh and Ravi Chirania was hearing a plea of former Navy sailor Yashpal Yadav challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) dated November 5, 2024, which had directed his dismissal from services and 90 days’ rigorous imprisonment. Justices Inderjeet Singh and Ravi Chirania said it is not the court’s duty to suggest the punishment to be imposed in disciplinary matters.“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, and the tasks they are required to perform,” the court said on March 24, upholding the tribunal’s verdict.The ruling continued, “There cannot be a liberal approach in cases involving striking a superior officer and causing serious injuries more 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.”Forces known for ‘strict discipline’Even if the superior Navy 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 a superior officer.Any leniency or liberal approach with regard to punishment would create serious problems and would make it difficult for the forces to discharge their duties towards the nation.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, and the tasks they are required to perform.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 subordinates in the uniformed forces.Such forces are required to function under strict discipline and for maintaining the same, superior officers are required to act and maintain a strict and tough disciplined environment.Also Read | Why your family might not be covered: NCDRC rejects claim for fatal LPG blastLimited judicial reviewIt is not the duty of the court to advise or suggest what punishment should be imposed by the authorities while examining and deciding disciplinary matters.It is the domain left by the legislature with the authorities, and the same cannot be interfered with unless the situation demands.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.2013 assaultThe case stems from an incident on May 27, 2013, when the petitioner, then serving as a Navy sailor on INS Savitri, was accused of assaulting his superior officer, Lieutenant Commander Brajesh Kumar.According to the petitioner, the confrontation occurred after the officer allegedly abused and provoked him, even physically kicking him, leading to a scuffle in which both sustained injuries.However, the prosecution’s version, backed by medical evidence and witness accounts, painted a far more serious picture.The superior Navy officer suffered significant injuries, including nasal bleeding, facial bruising, and shoulder trauma – indicating a forceful assault.A one-man inquiry followed by summary court martial proceedings found the sailor guilty under Section 45(a) of the Navy Act (striking a superior officer).Also Read | Disciplined force, higher standards: Punjab and Haryana High Court upholds candidate’s rejection over criminal trialPunishment, legal challengeThe Navy sailor was awarded 90 days’ rigorous imprisonment, dismissal from naval service, and withdrawal of the good conduct badge.The punishment against the Navy sailor was imposed on October 31, 2013.After his statutory petition remained undecided, the sailor approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, which refused to interfere.He then moved the high court, primarily arguing that the punishment was disproportionate.Petitioner’s argumentsSenior advocate R P Singh, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the incident was triggered by provocation and misconduct by the superior officer.The Navy sailor had an otherwise clean service record with “very good” performance entries.The punishment was excessively harsh compared to similar cases.The petitioner relied on precedents such as cases of R Karthik and Nitesh Rai, where dismissal orders were set aside and reinstatement granted.Centre’s standThe Centre, represented by additional solicitor general Bharat Vyas, opposed the plea, arguing that the assault caused serious injuries to the superior officer.Medical evidence clearly established the gravity of the attack by the Navy sailor.The case could not be compared with other precedents due to differing facts.The government emphasised that discipline is the backbone of the armed forces, and any act of violence against a superior officer warrants strict punishment.Also Read | ‘Derogatory to all women’: Patna High Court slams lawyer for accusing client’s wife of adulteryDistinction from earlier casesRejecting the reliance on earlier rulings, the court held that in the cited cases, the evidence was weak or injuries were not serious.In the present case, medical and circumstantial evidence clearly established a violent assault.Each disciplinary matter must be assessed on its own facts.Final verdictThe court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the findings of the summary court martial, the tribunal’s order and the punishment of dismissal from service.Significance of rulingThe judgment reinforces a consistent judicial stance, including zero tolerance for violence within the armed forces hierarchy.Limited scope of judicial interference in military discipline.Strict adherence to command structure as essential for operational integrityBy upholding the dismissal, the Rajasthan High Court has sent a strong message that discipline in uniformed services is paramount and cannot be compromised, even in cases alleging provocation.Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd