In Brief
An Indian Air Force serviceman was discharged as a habitual offender. He challenged his discharge before the Armed Forces Tribunal, arguing that a mandatory second warning letter should have been issued before the discharge order. The Supreme Court held that under the Air Force Policy, a second warning letter is required only when the competent authority opts to give the offender another chance. Since the authority decided to proceed with final discharge without offering another opportunity, no second warning was necessary. The discharge was proper and the Tribunal's judgment was set aside.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.