Delhi High Court Issues Notice Concerning An Indian Air Force Officer’s Request For Termination

The Delhi High Court issued a notice on Tuesday on a petition brought by an Indian Air Force (IAF) officer who was fired in connection with the inadvertent launch of a BrahMos combat missile that landed in Pakistan in March last year.

A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna sought a response from the Union of India through the Ministry of Defence, the Chief of Air Staff, and others on Ex-Wing Commander Abhinav Sharma’s petition contesting the termination decision.

The court has ordered that responses be made within six weeks and that any rejoinders if any, be filed within four weeks after that.

An appeal under Section 18 of the Air Force Act of 1950

Mr. Abhinav Sharma has filed an appeal under Section 18 of the Air Force Act of 1950, challenging the termination order issued against him on August 23, 2022.

He was assigned as an Engineering Officer at the time of the accident, which happened during a Squadron simulation exercise. As an Engineering Officer, the petitioner claims that he was only given professional and practical training for maintenance chores and that he was never given instruction on how to handle operations.

“The Petitioner was not taught against the counts of blame ascribed to him in the Court of Inquiry, and he performed in strict compliance with the SOP”, the plea said.

“The Petitioner had no experience running operations or dealing with operational situations, and the Respondent behaved wholly maliciously in issuing the Impugned Termination Order”, the plea adds.

The petition further claims that the authorities “deliberately avoided” the procedure for launching disciplinary proceedings and the necessity for a Court Martial trial by firing the petitioner under Section 18 of the Air Force Act.

The argument makes the claim that the petitioner carried out all of his tasks in accordance with the Combat SOP controlling the operations and that the incident’s only real cause was operational in nature.

“Even though the Petitioner was an Engineering Officer, the Court of Inquiry assigned him to blame for the failure to complete exterior checks of the combat connections of combat missiles, which continued to remain attached to FCS Junction Box 1 & 3”, the plea said.

Statement by ASG Chetan Sharma

ASG Chetan Sharma, who was speaking on behalf of the Union of India, presented a preliminary objection, arguing that the petitioner’s dismissal from service under Section 18 of the Air Force Act cannot be contested absent proof of mala fide.

“It’s true that this is the issue where we disgraced ourselves in front of the international community. The missile landed in Pakistan rather than India. It might have resulted in a war, and that nation lodged a complaint with the United Nations”, he added.

Also read: Nobel Laureate Economist’s Study: Happiness Can Be Purchased