Armed forces not dumping ground for unfit, says tribunal

Vijay Mohan

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 6

Holding that the services have the prerogative to discharge personnel placed in low medical category even if they have not completed their term of engagement to ensure operational efficiency, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has ruled that the services cannot be a dumping ground for unfit persons.

70% pending cases related to discharge

• There are over 15,000 cases pending before various Benches of the tribunal
• “It is for the respondents to assess who is fit and who is unfit for serving in the Air Force keeping in view the opinion of the medical board. Members of the armed forces must be physically and mentally fit to meet the challenges which the Air Force is likely to face during the course of discharge of duty,” the AFT Bench
• According to sources, about 70 per cent of the pending cases are related to discharge on medical grounds and denial of disability benefits

“It is for the respondents to assess who is fit and who is unfit for serving in the Air Force keeping in view the opinion of the medical board. Members of the armed forces must be physically and mentally fit to meet the challenges which the Air Force is likely to face during the course of discharge of duty,” the AFT Bench comprising Justice Anil Kumar and Lt Gen Anil Puri said while dismissing a petition of an airman seeking reinstatement of service.

“Any infirmity on any ground may be fatal to the collective discharge of duties by the armed forces. The Air Force cannot be a dumping ground of low medical category personnel to keep on working in spite of physical and mental ailment,” the Bench added.

There are over 15,000 cases pending before various Benches of the tribunal. According to sources, about 70 per cent of these are related to discharge on medical grounds and denial of disability benefits.

The petitioner was enrolled in the Air Force in 1992 and in 2012 was placed in low medical category for suffering from bipolar affective disorder. He was granted sheltered appointment from time to time and finally discharged in 2020 after rendering service of over 28 years.

His retirement in the normal course of service was due in 2028. He sought reinstatement in the service, which was denied by the Air Force, following which he moved the tribunal. He averred that he was forced to undergo psychiatric treatment in military hospital and not allowed to meet his family or given leave.

The Air Force contended that he was hospitalised in 2012 for argumentativeness, irritability, aggression and for fighting with neighbours. He had a history of multiple relapses in past and spent considerable time in hospital. Since he had completed pensionable service, he was invalided out as per the rules.

Ruling that there was the opinion of the medical board did not suffer from any illegality and arbitrariness and there was no illegality in denying extension in service, the Bench observed that in order to maintain the operational capabilities and effectiveness of a military unit, a substantive number of medically fit personnel are required and that physical fitness is necessary to enable a person to discharge his duty.