Cpl Sachin Kumar Solanki (Retd) vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~86
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 19.05.2026
+ W.P.(C) 6952/2026
CPL SACHIN KUMAR SOLANKI (RETD) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, Ms.
Esha Mehrotra, Ms Devangana
Sharma, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. P. S Singh CGSC, Mr.
Rajneesh Kumar Sharma, Ms.
Shivangi Sharma, Mr. Aditya
Tomar, Mr. Mrityunjay Singh,
Ms. Sakshi Raghav G.P, SGT
Anil Vashisth for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
CM APPL. 34213/2026 [ exemption from filing certified, dim, typed
and legible copies of the annexures accompanying with present writ
petition ]
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 6952/2026
3. The present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, assails the impugned order dated 17.10.2025
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 6952/2026 Page 1 of 12
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:42:28

passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi (hereinafter “ Tribunal ”) in OA No. 331/2018 whereby the
challenge laid by the Petitioner to his removal from service came to be
rejected. The Petitioner further seeks setting aside of the Speaking
Order dated 02.12.2017 ordering his removal from service along with
consequential relief of reinstatement.
4. Succinctly stated, the Petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Air
Force in the year 2011 as Ariman - Communication Technician and
was subsequently posted at various establishments.
5. On 22.01.2017, a video was uploaded on social media
(Facebook Account – with more than 2000 followers) wherein the
Petitioner, while being in uniform, publicly aired grievances
concerning service conditions stating disparity between officers and
airmen with respect to rations, uniform facilities, travelling conditions,
allowances and social treatment. The statements attributed to the
Petitioner included allegations that officers enjoyed privileged
treatment while “ Jawans ” suffered unequal conditions and that the
system discriminated between ranks.
6. Consequent thereto, a Court of Inquiry was assembled to
inquire into the circumstances relating to the uploading of the video
and on 29.08.2017 the Show Cause Notice was issued, containing the
following allegations:
"2. AND WHEREAS; you uploaded a video
on social media on 22 JANUARY 2017
making the following allegations with respect
to the service condition.
(a) Officers are getting full free rations
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 6952/2026 Page 2 of 12
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:42:28

whereas jawans are getting only Rs.3000/- to
3500/-. This money is not enough to purchase
milk and water.
(b) Officers are getting stitched uniform and
are being delivered to their residence by
logistics whereas jawans are not getting the
same. You have not been issued with shoes
for last two years from logistics.
(c) Officers are more educated for that they
are getting more payment, but why difference
in MSP? Officers are getting Rs.15,000/- and
jawans are getting Rs. 6000/- as per 7th pay
commission.
(d) While Officers proceed on T/D they are
going by own car and claiming the same and
staying in hotel whereas jawans are
proceeding on T/D without reservation and
they sit near the toilet and travel.
(e) When attending any party or function
Officers family are called with Ma'am
whereas jawans families are ignored and we
are ashamed of taking our wives in front of
Officers' wives.
(f) Government pays money for their job then
why so much difference between officers and
jawans. Please look into the matter;”
7. The Petitioner submitted his reply. Upon consideration of the
material available, including the admission of the Petitioner, the
competent authority passed Speaking Order dated 02.12.2017,
ordering removal from service by observing as under: -
“ 8. AND WHEREAS; I am the Competent Authority
in this case and have considered your reply to the
said SCN vis-a-vis entire facts on record on merits.
My views on this case are as follows: -
(a) You have aired your unsubstantiated allegations
about life and style of Army and CPF on a public
forum without having any knowledge about the
working the said non-AF organizations thereby
bringing disrepute to them.
(b) You have also brought out issues pertaining to
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 6952/2026 Page 3 of 12
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:42:28

IAF without mentioning such grievances even once
before any AF authority. While you felt aggrieved
but deliberately did choose in-house mechanism for
redressal of grievances. You have accepted to have
made these allegations without verifying the same.
(c) You were involved in undesirable activities,
which are illegal and prejudicial to Service
discipline, norms and ethos. Your acts tend to
impugn your integrity and character as an airman
and are unbecoming of a member of a combatant
force like the IAF.
(d) Considering your aforesaid misconducts as well
as the counts of blameworthiness attached to you by
the Col, it is evident that you have no respect for the
disciplined way of life that is hallmark of IAF. Your
misconducts (supra) have tarnished the image of the
IAF and the same are also not conducive to the
community living in IAF, hence your further
retention in service is undesirable.
9.NOW THEREFORE; in exercise of the powers
vested in me as the Air Officer Commanding-in-
Chief, South Western Air Command, Indian Air
Force, I hereby order removal from the service of
951230 Cpl Sachin Kumar Solanki of SWAC(U), AF,
in terms of Section 20(3) of the Air Force Act, 1950
read with Rule 18 of the Air Force Rules 1969.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. The petitioner challenged the same before the learned Tribunal
by filing O.A. No. 331/2018 which stood dismissed by the impugned
order dated 17.10.2025. The learned Armed Forces Tribunal observed
that the administrative action taken against the petitioner under
Section 20(3) of the Air Force Act, 1950 read with Rule 18 of the Air
Force Rules, 1969 was validly exercised as firstly, the Petitioner had
admittedly recorded and uploaded a video on social media while in
uniform and had publicly raised service-related grievances concerning
differences between officers and airmen with regard to facilities,
allowances and conditions of service, despite established internal
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 6952/2026 Page 4 of 12
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:42:28

mechanisms being available for redressal of such grievances. The
learned Tribunal further observed that the Petitioner had participated
in the proceedings and had acknowledged his involvement during the
inquiry, and thereafter was also issued a Show Cause Notice to which
he submitted a reply before the competent authority passed the
speaking order of dismissal.
9. The learned Tribunal additionally held that the Court of Inquiry
was only a preliminary fact-finding exercise and that the final
administrative action had been independently taken by the competent
authority after considering the material on record. On the issue of
proportionality, the learned Tribunal declined to interfere observing
that matters concerning discipline in the Armed Forces stand on a
different footing and the scope of judicial review over punishment is
limited, particularly where the competent authority had formed an
opinion that the petitioner’s conduct was prejudicial to service
discipline, contrary to service norms and detrimental to the image and
ethos of the Indian Air Force. Consequently, the learned Tribunal
concluded that the order of dismissal could neither be termed arbitrary
nor shockingly disproportionate and that no procedural infirmity,
violation of natural justice or jurisdictional error had been established
so as to justify interference with the impugned administrative action.
10. Aggrieved the Petitioner has now approached this Court by way
of the present petition.
11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has limited his arguments to
violation of principles of natural justice; weak mental state/
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 6952/2026 Page 5 of 12
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:42:28

dissatisfaction and frustration of the Petitioner with the forces owing
to family circumstances leading to recording of the video; the learned
Tribunal has erroneously referred the Petitioner as “ Technical Officer ”
and the punishment of removal from service is shockingly
disproportionate.
12. Per contra , the learned counsel for the Respondent submits that
no interference is warranted in the judgment passed by the learned
Tribunal, which has already discussed all the material aspects and
rendered a detailed judgment addressing all the grounds raised the
Petitioner and this Court should not re-appreciate the merits and
substitute it’s own view.
13. Submissions heard and the entire material placed on record has
been perused.
14. It is a settled principle that the scope of judicial review in
matters concerning military discipline is markedly limited, having
regard to the special constitutional and statutory framework governing
the Armed Forces and the unique requirements of command,
hierarchy, discipline and operational efficiency upon which such
institutions function. Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226
do not sit as appellate authorities over findings or punishments
imposed by competent military authorities and cannot substitute their
own assessment merely because another view may be possible or
because a different punishment may appear more appropriate.
Interference is warranted only in exceptional circumstances where the
action suffers from patent illegality, mala fides , procedural
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 6952/2026 Page 6 of 12
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:42:28

impropriety, violation of mandatory statutory provisions, perversity,
denial of natural justice causing prejudice, or where the punishment
imposed is so outrageously disproportionate as to shock the
conscience of the Court. The rationale for such restraint lies in the
recognition that maintenance of discipline in the Armed Forces stands
on a different footing from ordinary civil employment and issues
relating to service conduct, institutional ethos, obedience to command
structures and preservation of morale fall primarily within the domain
of military authorities possessing the requisite expertise and
operational understanding.
15. Consequently, constitutional courts ordinarily defer to the
satisfaction arrived at by disciplinary authorities in matters affecting
military administration and refrain from reappreciating evidence,
reassessing factual conclusions or undertaking comparative
examination of punishments, unless a clear case of arbitrariness or
manifest injustice is made out.
16. In the present case, perusal of the impugned order reflects that
all the grounds raised herein and the material aspects, have already
been dealt with and discussed in detail by the learned Tribunal.
17. Most importantly, it has been recorded that the foundational
facts giving rise to the administrative action remain substantially
undisputed. The Petitioner never disputed that the video in question
was recorded by him while he was in uniform, nor is there any serious
dispute regarding its subsequent upload on social media and the
contents thereof concerning service-related grievances and alleged
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 6952/2026 Page 7 of 12
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:42:28

disparities between officers and airmen. Thus, the factum of recording
and dissemination of the video, which formed the basis of initiation of
proceedings, stands as an admitted position. The same was also
confirmed by witness No. 2 and 3 as well as the contents of the Mercy
Petition filed by the Wife of the Petitioner.
18. Hence, this Court does not find fault in the observations of the
learned Tribunal that the Petitioner had acted in a manner which is
prohibited by various provisions of the Air Force Order 17/2015
specifically as well as Para 11 of the IAP 3903, which required the
Petitioner to maintain good order and discipline as per the rules. The
speaking order dated 02.12.2017 also recorded that the issue
concerned public dissemination by a serving member of the Air Force
of internal service grievances through social media, which is in clear
violation of Paragraph 11 of Chapter VIII of lAP 3903 which requires
Air Force personnel to exercise extreme caution while participating in
social networking platforms and specifically restrains dissemination of
service related information and AFO 17/2015 which mandates caution
in social media interaction and emphasizes preservation of
institutional discipline and security concerns.
19. While addressing the ground of mental incapacity of the
Petitioner to understand the consequences of the action and stressful
family conditions of the Petitioner, the learned Tribunal has
categorically observed that the Petitioner had initially stated that he
himself had uploaded the video and then tried to shift the blame by
taking a stand that the video was actually uploaded by some children
of his society who were using his phone. Further, the video was not
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 6952/2026 Page 8 of 12
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:42:28

only uploaded on his Facebook account, but also got circulated on
various social media platforms, which tarnished the image of the IAF
and it is not conducive of a member of the forces to take an excuse of
mental condition when he is bound by the Air Force Act and is
expected to not act in a manner unbecoming of a man in uniform.
20. The contention of the Petitioner that the learned Tribunal
erroneously referred to him as a “ Technical Officer ” instead of an
airman does not, in the opinion of this Court, materially affect the
ultimate conclusion reached in the matter. Irrespective of the rank held
by the Petitioner, the significance lies not in his designation but in the
nature of the act attributed to him. The Petitioner is equally bound by
the standards of discipline, restraint and adherence to institutional
mechanisms governing members of a combatant force. Public
dissemination of service grievances while being in uniform,
particularly through social media platforms, carries consequences
extending beyond the individual concerned and has the potential to
affect discipline, hierarchy, morale and institutional image.
21. It has also been urged that adequate opportunity has not been
granted to the Petitioner, the record reveals that the Petitioner was
specifically called upon to explain the allegations arising out of the
social media post/video and was also afforded opportunity to place his
defence. The Petitioner was admittedly issued a statutory Show Cause
Notice and had adequate opportunity to respond wherein he admitted
recording the video. Thereafter, after considering his response, the
competent authority passed the speaking order dated 02.12.2017.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 6952/2026 Page 9 of 12
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:42:28

22. Much emphasis was placed by the Petitioner on the contention
that he was not subjected to trial by Court Martial. The learned
Tribunal has observed that under the Army, Navy and Air Force
statutory framework, a Court of Inquiry is initially convened as a fact-
finding mechanism and, where the material so warrants, the competent
authority may proceed with administrative action. In the present case,
the Court of Inquiry was undertaken only to ascertain the
circumstances surrounding the uploading of the video on social media
and the extent of the Petitioner’s involvement. Significantly, the act
itself stood admitted by the Petitioner and the defence sought to be
projected was only with respect to the circumstances and state of mind
in which such act was committed. Thereafter, the order of removal
was not passed automatically on the recommendation of the Court of
Inquiry but independently by the competent authority after issuance of
Show Cause Notice and consideration of the Petitioner’s reply.
23. The learned Tribunal has further observed that if the Petitioner
intended to seek adjudication by way of Court Martial, such objection
ought to have been specifically raised at the stage of reply to the Show
Cause Notice. In any event, mere absence of Court Martial would not,
by itself, vitiate the proceedings when the foundational facts stood
admitted, the misconduct was not in dispute and the competent
authority consciously exercised the statutory power of administrative
action after following the prescribed procedure.
24. As regards the challenge to the proportionality of punishment, it
is observed that the competent authority, upon consideration of the
material on record, formed an opinion that the acts of the Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 6952/2026 Page 10 of 12
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:42:28

were incompatible with his continued retention in service. The
speaking order specifically records that the conduct in question was
illegal, prejudicial to service discipline, inconsistent with the ethos
expected from a member of a combatant force and had the effect of
tarnishing the image of the institution. It is further noticed therein that
despite the existence of established internal mechanisms for redressal
of grievances, the Petitioner chose not to avail such channels and
instead resorted to public dissemination through social media.
25. Thus, the punishment cannot be said to be so outrageously
disproportionate as to shock the conscience of this Court. Even
otherwise, the assessment of the nature and gravity of misconduct and
the corresponding penalty to be imposed falls primarily within the
exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority. In exercise of powers
under Article 226, this Court does not sit in appeal over the quantum
of punishment nor can it substitute its own view merely because
another penalty may also have been possible.
26. The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal fundamentally rests
upon legality of administrative action and scope of judicial review
rather than upon the status designation of the Petitioner. This Court
remains conscious that matters relating to discipline, conduct and
punishment within the Armed Forces fall primarily within the domain
of the competent disciplinary authorities and the specialised
adjudicatory mechanism. The learned Tribunal, comprising Judicial
and Administrative Members with expertise in military administration
and service conditions, has already examined the proportionality of
the penalty and found no infirmity therein.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 6952/2026 Page 11 of 12
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:42:28

27. Having considered the matter in its entirety, this Court finds no
infirmity in the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal and the
view adopted is a plausible view.
28. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
MAY 19, 2026
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 6952/2026 Page 12 of 12
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:42:28