In a detailed judgment delivered on October 10, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of retired Army officer Colonel S.K. Jain, upholding the Armed Forces Tribunal’s (AFT) 2012 order that substituted his dismissal with compulsory retirement. The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Alok Aradhe ruled that the Tribunal had acted “strictly within the statutory framework” while exercising its discretion under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
Background
Colonel S.K. Jain, an officer of the Army Ordnance Corps, served as Commandant of the Northern Command Vehicle Depot in Udhampur. In 2008, he was accused of seeking a ₹10,000 bribe from a contractor and being found with small quantities of ammunition and unaccounted cash. A General Court Martial (GCM) found him guilty of corruption and illegal possession of ammunition, dismissing him from service.
However, the Tribunal later found no evidence to prove the bribery charge and held that the ammunition recovered was old and not used for any unlawful purpose. It substituted the conviction from “possession under the Arms Act” to “an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline” under Section 63 of the Army Act, granting him compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence and the Tribunal’s reasoning, noted that the AFT was right in invoking its powers under Section 15(6) of the 2007 Act, which allows substitution of charges if the facts justify a lesser or related offence.
Justice Aradhe, writing for the Bench, observed, “The Tribunal exercised its discretion in a manner which is both just and proportionate, balancing the disciplinary needs of service with fairness to the individual.”
The Court found that the ammunition recovered from Colonel Jain’s office-old and unused-indicated negligence rather than criminal intent. “The recovery reflected a failure to follow standing instructions on disposal of surplus ammunition,” the bench noted, agreeing with the Tribunal that it was sufficient to establish a breach of discipline, not a criminal offence.
The Court further held that the AFT’s lenient approach-reducing dismissal to compulsory retirement-was appropriate, especially since Jain had already accepted his retiral benefits under protest. “The Tribunal has acted strictly within the statutory framework,” the judgment affirmed.
Decision
Concluding that the Tribunal’s order was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, the Supreme Court dismissed Colonel Jain’s appeal. “We find no merit in this appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed,” the bench ruled, bringing an end to a legal battle that had spanned over a decade.
Case: Colonel S.K. Jain vs Union of India & Anr.
Case Type: Criminal Appeal No. 628 of 2016
Date of Judgment: October 10, 2025
