CRWP-348-2025 (O&M) and other connected case 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 245 CRWP-348-2025 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 18.05.2026 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS … Petitioners Versus RAJ BIHARI SINGH AND ANOTHER ... Respondents 247 CWP-8935-2025 UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER … Petitioners Versus EX HAV SITA RAM SINGH YADAV AND ANOTHER ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Ms. Shalini Atri, Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners-UOI. (in both petitions) Mr. G.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL) 1. Both the petitions, the details of which are mentioned in the heading, involve common point of law and common set of facts, hence, they are being dealt with together. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CRWP- 348-2025. 2. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to order dated 11.10.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as – “the Tribunal”) by which, the punishment imposed upon the respondents after Summary Court Martial, has been converted KUMARI SAPNA 2026.05.25 10.09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-348-2025 (O&M) and other connected case 2 from dismissal to discharge and reduction in rank was set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once, the allegations were proved in the Summary Court Martial, the ultimate punishment imposed upon could not have been altered and therefore, the modification of the punishment from dismissal to discharge is arbitrary and illegal. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 on other hand submits that the allegations alleged against the respondents were only insubordination by replying to the words “teri aukat kya hai” to a Naib Subedar. Learned counsel submits that there is no other allegation/charge and merely on the basis of the said words, which words attributed were also disputed, the punishment of dismissal was imposed, which punishment has rightly been modified by the Tribunal keeping in view the fact that the respondents had more than 24 years of service. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 6. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances where the respondents have 24 years of service to their credit and the allegation was merely of insubordination by replying to a Naib Subedar, the Tribunal was well within its jurisdiction to modify the said punishment of dismissal from service to that of discharge and to set aside the reduction in rank being not commensurate to the charges alleged and proved. Though, the respondents have not been retained in service but, keeping in view the fact that after 15 years of service, the solider becomes entitled to the pensionary benefits and as respondents have already rendered 24 years of service to their credit, the modification of punishment from dismissal to discharge, keeping in view the extraordinary facts, needs no interference at the hands of this Court. 7. It may be noticed that the charge/allegation which was proved against KUMARI SAPNA 2026.05.25 10.09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-348-2025 (O&M) and other connected case 3 the respondents was not such that it should invite the punishment of dismissal whereas the discharge from service will serve the purpose. Hence, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the present writ petitions. 8. The writ petitions are dismissed. 9. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 10. A photocopy of this order be also placed on the file of connected case. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) 18.05.2026_ JUDGE sapna adhikari Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No KUMARI SAPNA 2026.05.25 10.09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document