AFT Quashes Army Discharge, Orders Soldier's Reinstatement
In a significant ruling, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has directed the Indian Army to reinstate Sowar Pradeep Kumar, a soldier from the 42 Armoured Regiment. The tribunal found the Army's decision to discharge him, based on the assumed 'possibility' of him interacting with hardcore criminals during his imprisonment, was grounded in assumption rather than concrete proof.
The Legal Battle and Case Background
The Lucknow bench of the AFT, which included Justice Anil Kumar and Vice Admiral Atul Kumar Jain, partially approved the soldier's application. The bench ordered his notional reinstatement, allowing him to complete the service required to qualify for a pension. However, the tribunal denied him back wages and any promotion benefits that might have accrued.
Sowar Pradeep Kumar began his service in 2004. His troubles started in 2011 while he was on leave, when he became embroiled in a criminal case. He spent nearly seven years in jail until 2018, when the Allahabad High Court intervened, suspending his sentence and granting him bail. He had been convicted by a sessions court in Uttar Pradesh under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 304/34 and 307/34, and his criminal appeal remains pending.
Contradictions in the Army's Argument
Following his release on bail on December 11, 2018, Kumar returned to his unit and served for over two years. The AFT specifically noted that there were no adverse reports against him during this period. Crucially, he even successfully underwent and passed a promotion cadre.
The tribunal observed that this successful service and promotion qualification directly contradicted the Army's core argument that his continued presence in the organisation was against its interests. Despite this clean record, the Commander of the 39 Armoured Brigade ordered his discharge on February 6, 2021.
The discharge was executed under Army Act Section 20(3) and Rule 13(3)(III)(v). The official reason cited was the 'strong possibility' that the soldier had made undesirable contacts with hardened criminals or anti-national elements during his long incarceration.
AFT Questions Delay and Lack of Evidence
The AFT bench strongly questioned the Army's procedural delay and the complete absence of any evidence to support its claim. The tribunal stated that if the army authorities were genuinely convinced that Kumar was a security risk, they should have acted immediately upon his return.
'If there was a strong possibility that the applicant interacted and communicated with some hardcore criminals or anti-national elements... the army authorities should have conducted an enquiry to find documentary evidence or proof in this regard at the earliest opportunity,' the tribunal stated.
The bench pointed out a critical inconsistency: the Army took over two years and two months to decide on the discharge after Kumar was released on bail. The tribunal reasoned that if his retention was a genuine threat, he should have been discharged within a reasonable period of 3–4 months. The fact that he was allowed to serve without issue for such a lengthy period ultimately negated the very basis for his discharge.
