Union Of India & Ors. vs Cpl Hardeep Singh Khalsa

$~140
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 13 July, 2026

+ W.P.(C) 9256/2026 & CM APPL. 43349/2026, CM APPL.
43350/2026, CM APPL. 43351/2026
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH SECRETARY
DMA, DHQ PO
NEW DELHI-110011
...PETITIONER NO. 1

2. THE CHIEF OF AIR STAFF
AIR HEADQUARTERS
(VAYU BHAWAN), MOTILAL NEHRU MARG,
NEW DELHI-110106
…PETITIONER NO. 2

3. AIR OFFICER COMMANDING
AIR FORCE RECORD OFFICE
SUBROTO PARK, NEW DELHI-110010
…PETITIONER NO. 3

4. AIR OFFICER COMMANDING
104 (H) Sqn AF, %56 AFO
…PETITIONER NO. 4

Through: Mr Farman Ali, CGSC with Ms
Usha Jamnal GP, Wg Cdr K
Srikant, Wg Cdr TN Swamy,
MWO Ashok Jangid, Sgt
Shyam

Versus

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SURYAKANT
YADAV
Signing Date:15.07.2026
16:50:44
W.P.(C) 9256/2026 Page 1 of 8

1. CPL HARDEEP SINGH KHALSA
S/O SHRI RAJ BAHADUR SINGH
PRESENTLY POSTED AT-104(H), Sqn, AF
%56 APO
…RESPONDENT NO. 1

Through: Appearance not given.




CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

JUDGMENT (ORAL)
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.
1. The present writ petition is filed by the Union of India seeking
directions in the matter of issuance of writ of Certiorari qua the order
of the Armed Forces Tribunal delivered in O.A. No. 2820/2025 on
nd
22 May, 2026.
nd
2. Vide the impugned order dated 22 May, 2026, the Tribunal
has allowed the Original Application preferred by the respondent,
thereby directing the present petitioner to discharge the respondent on
th
or before 15 June, 2026.
3. The Show Cause Notice [‘SCN’] and the proceedings initiated
against the respondent under the Habitual Offenders Policy were
quashed. A direction was issued to grant discharge to the respondent
from service, with a clarification that the respondent shall not be
entitled to pension, ex-servicemen status, or any retiral benefits.
4. It was also made clear that the dismissal under the Habitual
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SURYAKANT
YADAV
Signing Date:15.07.2026
16:50:44
W.P.(C) 9256/2026 Page 2 of 8

Offenders Policy will not create an embargo on the right of the
respondent to seek future civil employment.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would invite our attention to
the factual matrix, which led to filing of the original application.
According to him, the respondent, an airman, was issued three red ink
entries/warnings.
6. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the fourth red
ink entry in his record was in relation to his wife acquiring the
employment in a foreign country (Canada), and a SCN for the same
th
was issued to him vide notice dated 17 February, 2026.
7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the fourth
red ink entry accordingly based on the aforesaid conduct, which was
admitted by the respondent, was made in his service book.
8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
Tribunal has set-aside the said SCN, without understanding the gamut
of the matter in its true perspective, as he would urge that the
department had issued SCN to the respondent qua his wife having
applied and taken up employment, without permission of the
employer, with a private entrepreneur in an overseas country.
9. He would further claim that subsequent thereto, the wife of the
respondent acquired a PR Card, and such conduct of the wife of the
present respondent is in violation of the policy of the petitioner,
particularly clauses 6.1 & 6.2 of Chapter VI of IAP 3904.
10. He would claim that the violations of restriction viz., to obtain a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SURYAKANT
YADAV
Signing Date:15.07.2026
16:50:44
W.P.(C) 9256/2026 Page 3 of 8

permission prior to not only seeking employment but also a PR Card,
invites the punishment of disciplinary action against the respondent.
He would invite the attention of this Court to the instructions issued
by the higher authorities, thereby directing the initiation of action on
st
the said issue i.e., dated 21 May, 2026.
11. As such, according to him, without looking into the directions
issued by the authorities, namely the Department of JAG, it is urged
that the Armed Force Tribunal has proceeded to exercise the
jurisdiction hastily, thereby not only quashing the SCN but also
directing the discharge of the respondent from the services.
12. He would claim that though the SCN that was quashed was
based on the issue qua the employment taken by the wife of the
respondent without the permission of the employer, the petitioner is
not precluded from taking action under Clause 6.8 of Chapter VI of
IAP 3904 for securing the PR Card without there being intimation and
permission from the employer. He would urge that such illegality
committed by the respondent was overlooked by the Tribunal while
granting the relief in question.
13. It is his further contention that the Tribunal has overlooked the
aforesaid issue and has only proceeded on the aspect of the earlier
SCN, which was in relation to the employment and not the PR Card,
and the issue of the PR Card was not looked at all.
14. As against above, learned counsel for the respondent would
urge that it is an admitted position borne out from the record that the
respondent had sought discharge after three red ink notations were
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SURYAKANT
YADAV
Signing Date:15.07.2026
16:50:44
W.P.(C) 9256/2026 Page 4 of 8

made in his service record. He would claim that the returning of the
proposal was treated as a rejection qua the request for discharge from
service, and rightly so, the Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction.

15. He would further urge that while the SCN is based on the fact
that the wife of the petitioner has secured employment without prior
intimation/permission of the employer, the fact about her having
acquired a PR Card was well within the knowledge of the petitioner.
So as to substantiate the said contention, he has invited our attention
to the proposal submitted by the respondent for the grant of discharge,
wherein he has categorically stated about his wife having acquired a
PR Card.
16. He would further claim that the said fact of the wife having
acquired a PR Card was very much within the knowledge of the
th
petitioner on 25 April, 2025, as could be ascertained from the
Annexure P-4, which is an application for requesting for premature
discharge.

17. As such, he would urge that the petitioner having chosen only to
issue an SCN for the violation of the condition as regards the
employment being sought in a foreign country without permission of
the employer, the Tribunal was justified in exercising the jurisdiction.
18. Having considered the rival claims, the admitted facts which are
borne out of the record are as under: -
a. The respondent, in the capacity of an airman, has put in more
than 11 years of service with the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SURYAKANT
YADAV
Signing Date:15.07.2026
16:50:44
W.P.(C) 9256/2026 Page 5 of 8

b. The respondent is married, and his spouse later improved her
qualifications and sought employment in Canada in the said
capacity, and not only secured employment but also secured a
PR Card.
19. The fact about employment being secured based on her
qualification and also the PR Card was brought to the knowledge of
the petitioner, as could be inferred from the Annexure-P4
th
communication dated 25 April, 2025. The aforesaid default on the
part of the respondent has led to him being issued an SCN for
discharge from service on the basis of having four red entries
including the one on account of his spouse securing an employment,
as noted hereinbefore.
20. The fact remains that the respondent himself had sought
discharge from service, whereas the SCN which was issued by the
petitioner was also for discharging the petitioner from service in view
of his last three red ink notations in his record, so also the fourth red
ink entry in regard to his wife having secured employment without
permission/intimation to the employer of the respondent.
21. The fact that the employment was secured by the wife of the
respondent was absolutely well within the knowledge of the petitioner,
and perhaps the same has led to the issuance of the impugned SCN,
which was subject matter of the application before the Armed Forces
Tribunal.
22. However, it is also a matter of record that even during the
pendency of OA, before the Armed Forces Tribunal, the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SURYAKANT
YADAV
Signing Date:15.07.2026
16:50:44
W.P.(C) 9256/2026 Page 6 of 8

was well within the knowledge of the fact that when the respondent
th
applied for discharge on 25 April, 2025, he had disclosed the fact of
his wife having secured a PR Card.

23. In spite of the above, the petitioner has chosen to serve him an
SCN in relation to the red ink entries in his service book and for
discharge from service and one of the entry was on account of his wife
having secured employment in a foreign country without the
permission of the employer.
24. Primarily, the learned Tribunal was of the opinion that where an
employee had not completed the qualifying service for pension,
dismissal from service would permanently stigmatize the individual
and adversely affect future employment prospect. In our opinion, the
said fact rightly prevailed before the Tribunal for exercising
jurisdiction, thereby ordering not only the quashing of the SCN but
also directing discharge with a certain rider, as could be noticed in the
order impugned.

25. We don’t see any reason as to cause any interference in extra-
ordinary jurisdiction in the view expressed by the Tribunal as, in our
opinion, not only the Tribunal is armed with the powers to exercise
the jurisdiction for which it has passed the impugned order, but the
Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly made the equities and passed the
order impugned.
26. That being so, we see no reason to infer or accept the
contentions raised by the petitioner that the respondent’s wife having
acquired a PR Card without permission from the petitioner can be said
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SURYAKANT
YADAV
Signing Date:15.07.2026
16:50:44
W.P.(C) 9256/2026 Page 7 of 8

to lead to fresh proceedings against the respondent under the clause
6.8 of Chapter VI of IPA 3904 particularly when the issue was within
their knowledge at the time of issuance of SCN which stood quashed
by the learned Tribunal.
27. As such, the petition fails and stands dismissed.
28. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
29. A copy of this Judgment be uploaded on the website of this
Court.









NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
(JUDGE)



AMIT SHARMA
(JUDGE)
JULY 13, 2026/ sky/st
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SURYAKANT
YADAV
Signing Date:15.07.2026
16:50:44
W.P.(C) 9256/2026 Page 8 of 8