'To err is human, to forgive divine’: Himachal HC softens dismissal of ex-Army officer to compulsory retirement

After nearly two decades, the long-standing legal battle of ex-Army officer Major Onkar Singh Guleria has finally drawn to a close. Demonstrating judicial insight and a discerning sense of justice, the Himachal Pradesh High Court converted his dismissal from the post of Deputy Director, Sainik Welfare, into compulsory retirement after observing that the “punishment imposed shocks the conscience of the Court”.

Recognising both his 17 years of dedicated service and his firm Army-grounded conduct, the Division Bench of Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma also dropped contempt proceedings pending against him, invoking the timeless words of poet Alexander Pope that “to err is human and to forgive is divine”.

The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the retired army officer was appointed Zila Sainik Welfare Officer in 1990 and later as Deputy Director, Sainik Welfare. His troubles began in 2005 when he opposed the use of the Sainik Rest House for a court complex. In a letter dated July 26, 2005, addressed to the then Chief Justice of the High Court and others, he invoked the “Kargil martyrs” while questioning the treatment being meted out to Army personnel. The communication triggered disciplinary proceedings. He was dismissed from service in June 2007 after refusing to participate in an inquiry.

Now 74, the former officer furnished an unconditional apology, while withdrawing his past statements. He detailed his ill health, including cancer, hypertension and disability in the right foot, while seeking the quashing of “all major and minor penalties”. He sought reinstatement with benefits and dropping of criminal contempt proceedings.

Noting that his conduct was “firm and constant in line with his Army background”, the Bench asserted that his services of 17 years could not be overlooked. “The punishing authority concerned, apparently did not take this fact into consideration while dismissing him from service on account of his misconduct and apparently he has lost his service benefits, i.e. his pensionary rights and gratuity,” the court observed.

The Bench added that the ex-serviceman’s communications were “mis-directed” and not aimed at personal adversaries. “He was only aggrieved by the fact that Zila Sainik Rest House was taken over for the purposes of Court Complex temporarily and, therefore, no such personal attribution can be attributed to him being an Ex-Serviceman.”

The Bench asserted that the case did not involve “integrity or moral turpitude” but a misguided stand. Referring to his present health and age, the court found that dismissal went far beyond what was warranted.

The Bench asserted that issuance of the contempt notice was on account of the “belligerent attitude of the ex-army officer who apparently tried to hold his ground keeping in view the military background and failed to notice that the premises were to be used for larger public”.

Invoking forgiveness as a judicial principle, the Bench declared: “Keeping in view the fact that now an unconditional apology has been tendered by the appellant by way of an affidavit and the appellant as such is now a senior citizen in the evening of his life, we feel that it would be appropriate to convert the punishment as such from dismissal into an order of compulsory retirement.”

The Bench directed the State to consider his case for release of all consequential benefits and complete the exercise within two months. The contempt proceedings were also dropped.