Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 11248/2025, CM APPL. 46237/2025
WG CDR TEJBIR SINGH (32370-L) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra, Mr. Nikunj Arora, Mr. Arjun Panwar, Mr. Amrit Koul, Mr. Prahil Sharma and Ms. Muskaan Datta, Advs.
Through: Dr. B. Ramaswamy, CGSC for UOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT
11.08.2025 C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The entitlement, of the petitioner, to study leave, is in dispute.
2. The petitioner completed his MBBS in 2012, and was commissioned in the Indian Air Force[1]. He was promoted as Flight Lieutenant on 23 February 2013 and as Squadron Leader on 23 February 2017. He completed his MS in General Surgery in 2020, and was promoted as Wing Commander on 23 February 2024.
3. The IAF conducts examinations, every year, for officers or cadets who decide to proceed on study leave. For the year 2025, the "IAF" hereinafter Study Leave Examination was scheduled for 14 April 2024. As the petitioner desired to proceed on study leave to get enrolled in super specialty courses in medical institutions across the country, he undertook the examination. The result of the Study Leave Examination was declared on 14 June 2024. The name of the petitioner was enlisted among the candidates who were successful, for grant of Study Leave in 2025. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned Counsel for the petitioner, emphasises para 4(e) of the communication of result, which read thus:
4. Following this, the petitioner applied for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test-Super Specialty[3] conducted by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences, for admission to super specialty courses in medical institutions across the country. He was declared successful on 30 April 2025. Counselling was fixed in June 2025. The petitioner appeared in the second round of counselling, and was allotted the subject of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at the Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, on 10 June 2025.
5. In the interregnum, following proceeding initiated against the petitioner on the ground that he had sought reimbursement of an Disciplinary or Vigilance "NEET-SS" hereinafter erroneous claim of ₹ 2 lakhs, a Court of Enquiry was set up, on the basis of the recommendations of which the petitioner was awarded a penalty of ‘severe displeasure’ which is one of the categories of ‘censure’, by order dated 22 May 2025. The censure was to remain alive for twelve months with effect from 22 May 2025. It is, therefore, currently running.
6. On 15 July 2025, the following communication was issued to the petitioner, with the approval of the Director General Medical Services (Air)4: “DTE GEN MEDICAL SERVICES (AIR) AIR HEADQUARTERS, RK PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 AIRHQ/26158/395/MED 1 dt 15 Jul 25 CH AFBNG (COMDT)
STUDY LEAVE 2025: AFMS SPECIALIST OFFRSAF-32370-L, MR 09390 F WG CDR TEJBIR SINGH MED OF CHAFB
1. Reference is made to CHAFB signal NO. 2025/CHAFBNG/PO/32 dated 13 June 2025.
2. The above named officer has been awarded “Severe Displeasure” – To remain operative for 12 months by AOC-in-C HA, TC, IAF on 22 May 2025. The effective period of censure is from 22 May 2025 to 21 May 2026.
3. In view of the award of the Censure and the operative period thereof the officer is not permitted to proceed on study leave during the effective period of censure as per Para 32(f) of the AFO 05/2025.
4. This has the approval of DGMS (Air). Electronically Signed by AIR CMDE SHAMSHER SINGH DALAL” "the DGMS" hereinafter Para 32(f) of AFO 05/2025, dated 9 April 2025, read thus:
7. The petitioner approached the Armed Forces Tribunal[5], by way of OA 2203/2025, challenging the aforesaid communication, and notice was issued by the Tribunal. The petitioner, however, submits that the Tribunal would not have jurisdiction in the matter in view of Section 3(o)(iv)(iii)6 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007[7] which specifically excludes, from the definition of “service matters”, matters relating to “leave of any kind”. This position is incontrovertible, and "the Tribunal" hereinafter (o) “service matters”, in relation to the persons subject to the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) and the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), mean all matters relating to the conditions of their service and shall include—
(i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits;
(ii) tenure, including commission, appointment, enrolment, probation, confirmation, seniority, training, promotion, reversion, premature retirement, superannuation, termination of service and penal deductions;
(iii) summary disposal and trials where the punishment of dismissal is awarded;
(iv) any other matter, whatsoever, but shall not include matters relating to—
(i) order issued under Section 18 of the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) and Section 18 of the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950); and
(ii) transfers and postings including the change of place or unit on posting whether individually or as a part of unit, formation or ship in relation to the persons subject to the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) and the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950);
(iii) leave of any kind;
(iv) summary court martial except where the punishment is of dismissal or imprisonment for more than three months; "the AFT Act" hereinafter is not disputed by learned Counsel for the respondent either. The petitioner has therefore moved an application before the Tribunal, seeking to withdraw OA 2203/2025. Though the application is yet to be decided, we have entertained the writ petition, as Section 3(o)(iv)(iii) of the AFT Act specifically excludes “matters relating to leave of any kind”. The OA before the Tribunal was, therefore, obviously misdirected; however, the petitioner cannot be left without a remedy.
8. Having moved an application before the Tribunal for withdrawing OA 2203/2025, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition before this Court, praying that the letter dated 15 July 2025 supra, rejecting the petitioners request for study leave be quashed and that the respondents be directed to grant study leave to the petitioner as sought by him, in terms of the earlier letter dated 14 June 2024.
9. We have heard Mr. Ankur Chhibber for the petitioner and Dr.
10. Mr. Chhibber advances the following submissions:
(i) The reliance, by the respondents, on Clause 32(f) of AFO
05/25 is completely misguided. The said Clause does not deal with study leave at all. Apropos the reference to “Course” in Clause 32(f), Mr. Chhibber submits that the said Clause applies only to suitability for courses, and not to entitlement to study leave. In fact, submits Mr. Chhibber, an officer, while attending a “course”, continues to remain on duty, whereas an officer who has gone away on study leave is not treated as on duty during the period of study leave.
(ii) The only proscription, against grant of study leave, is where there is a DV ban against the officer on the date when his application is processed by the Screening Committee or even on the date when the study leave is to commence. For this, Mr. Chhibber places reliance on para 4(e) of the communication dated 14 June 2024 supra, whereby the petitioner was informed that he was successful in the selection for candidates who desired study leave.
(iii) Without prejudice, Mr. Chhibber submits that Clause
32(f) of AFO 05/25 refers to consideration by the “Competent Authority”. The Competent Authority, who would take a decision on the petitioner’s entitlement to study leave, he submits, was the Director General Armed Forces Medical Services[8], and not the DGMS. He relies on a flowchart contained in para 5 of Appendix B to the communication dated 14 June 2024, which set out the Placement Procedure for Study Leave for the year 2025, and stipulated that permission to proceed on Study Leave would be issued by the “DGAFMS/DG-1D” and forwarded to the respective DGMSs, who would issue authority to move for Study Leave. In his "the DGAFMS" hereinafter case, submits Mr. Chhibber, the petitioner’s file was never forwarded, but was rejected by the DGMS.
(iv) The applicable instructions with respect to grant of Study
Leave are contained in a circular dated 19 September 2023 issued by the Ministry of Defence[9] and circulated to the Directorate Generals of Medical Services of the Army, Navy and Air Force as well as the AFMC, Pune. Para 4(c) of the said Circular defines “Study Leave” as “Leave granted to Officers of the AFMS in accordance with AI 13/78 (as amended) for Post Graduate/Post Doctoral Trg”. Para 25 of the Circular deals specifically with the “procedure (to) be adopted for grant of study leave to officers of the AFMS”. Para 26 stipulates thus:
(v) Mr. Chhibber also places reliance on the extant Policy regarding award of censure to officers of the Armed Forces, as contained in Joint Armed Forces Order No 01/2023 dated 30 October 2023 in which, apropos “Severe Displeasure” awarded by the AOC-in-C, it is specified thus: “Operated as specified by awarding authority up to a maximum of THREE years from date of award. During the operative period, if a Censure has been considered once as a part of a Selection Board/Promotion "MOD" hereinafter Board, it will cease to be operative thereafter.”
(vi) Finally, Mr. Chhibber refers to the case of one Sqn Ldr
11. Dr. Ramaswamy, in response, submits that the concept of a DV ban applies only to the Army, and not to the IAF. In the case of the IAF, he submits that the policy which applies for grant of study leave is contained in AFO 05/25, and that the respondent has correctly refused study leave to the petitioner as Clause 32(f) of the AFO specifically envisages persons who have been awarded Severe Displeasure as being ineligible for proceeding for courses, in India or abroad, during the currency of the Displeasure. On the attention of Dr. Ramaswamy being invited to the communication dated 14 June 2024, whereby the petitioner was intimated that he had been selected for proceeding on study leave, and specifically to para 4(e) thereof, which required that the officer had no DV ban against him, Dr. Ramaswamy submits that the said communication applies to study leave for training, and not study leave for pursuing courses. In conclusion, Dr. Ramaswamy submits that, if a censured officer such as the petitioner was granted study leave, it would lower the morale of the Forces. The case of Sqn Ldr Deepak, he submits, is distinguishable, as Sqn Ldr Deepak had been awarded only a Displeasure, not a Severe Displeasure.
12. Having heard learned Counsel and applied ourselves to the material on record, we find ourselves in agreement with Mr. Chhibber in his contention that Clause 32(f) of AFO 05/25 cannot be invoked as a basis to deny, to the petitioner, study leave as sought by him. Dr. Ramaswamy’s contention that para 4(e) of the communication dated 14 June 2024 is not applicable as it deals with Study Leave for Training and not Study Leave for Courses, is obviously unsustainable. In the first place, Appendix A to the said Communication enlists the officers who were granted study leave for 2025, and the petitioner’s name figures therein. It cannot, therefore, be sought to be contended that the terms and conditions set out in the communication dated 14 June 2024 not apply to the petitioner. Para 4 of the said circular draws the attention of the officers granted study leave thereunder, which includes the petitioner, to “the following provisions of Training Rules 2023”. There is no proscription, in any of the sub- paras of para 4, to grant of study leave to an officer during the currency of a penalty of Severe Displeasure awarded to him. All that para 4(e) requires is that there should be no DV ban against the officer either on the date of consideration of his case for grant of study leave or on the date of commencement of study leave.
13. But for faintly contending that the concept of a DV ban applies only to the Army and not to the IAF, Dr. Ramaswamy is unable to elucidate any reason why para 4(e) of the communication dated 14 June 2024 would not apply to the petitioner. In fact, the contention appears ex facie to be erroneous, as the communication dated 14 June 2024 is addressed to the DGMSs of the Army, Navy and Air Force.
14. The same position is reflected in para 26 of the Circular dated 19 September 2023 issued by the MOD, titled “Training and Professional Progression Rules for Medical/Non-Technical Officers of Armed Forces Medical Services”, extracted supra.
15. When there are, thus, specific provisions dealing with Study Leave, which do not operate as a proscription to grant of Study Leave to the petitioner, we agree with Mr. Chhibber that the respondents erred in rejecting his application for Study Leave on the basis of Clause 32(f) of AFO 05/25, which makes no specific reference to Study Leave at all, and refers to “suitability” for courses.
16. In fact, the concept of “suitability” is, even etymologically speaking, distinct from entitlement to proceed on study leave. In Valsala Kumari Devi M v Director, Higher Secondary Education10, the Supreme Court held that “the expression ‘suitability’ means that a person to be appointed shall be legally eligible and ‘eligible’ should be taken to mean ‘fit to be chosen’.” Thus, “suitability”, plainly and legally understood, refers to the “fitness” of the candidate for the course. Inasmuch as the petitioner had cleared the requisite selection for securing admission to the super specialty course in the AFMC, Pune, his “suitability” for the course cannot be questioned.
17. Insofar as the petitioner’s entitlement to proceed on study leave is concerned, there being no DV ban against him, he cannot be denied study leave.
18. The decision to deny study leave to the petitioner, as contained in the impugned letter dated 15 July 2025 is, therefore, quashed and set aside. It is declared that the petitioner was eligible to be granted study leave as had earlier been communicated to him by letter dated 14 June 2024.
19. The writ petition is allowed accordingly with no orders as to costs.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J. OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J. AUGUST 11, 2025