No. 9777 of 2009 Ex. Sube - Armed Forces Tribunal

10. It was argued that there had to be a distinction between „fear‟ and
„cowardice‟. „Fear‟ has been defined in the Oxford Advance Learner‟s
Dictionary as “the bad feeling that you have when you are in danger, that
something bad might happen, or when a particular thing frightens you.”
Similarly, „coward‟ has been defined in the same dictionary as “a person who
is not brave or who does not have the courage to do something that other
people do not think are especially difficult.” „Cowardice‟ has been defined as
“fear or lack of courage”. This distinction between „fear‟ and „cowardice‟ has
to be understood in the context of the incident for which the Petitioner has
been accused. „Fear‟ is a feeling which to a large extent occurs usually in raw
and young recruits/soldiers but this feeling can be overcome by experience,
training, and high morale. The Petitioner had approximately 23 years of
service and had received 5 promotions to the rank of a Subedar and was
therefore an experienced soldier. What the Petitioner has done tantamounted
to cowardice, in that when the Petitioner was confronted with a critical
situation, he did not act in conformity with his status, experience, training and
duties and instead of acting like a leader, chose to hide himself, thereby
saving his skin while exposing his men to heightened and increased risk.
There is ample evidence by various witnesses, both prosecution and defence,
that throughout the incident the only JCO who was visible was Subedar
Paramjit Singh and the petitioner was no where to be seen during the entire
episode.
11. Learned counsel for the Respondents argued that to better appreciate
as to what was expected of the Petitioner, we have to see the actions taken
by the two JCOs i.e. Subedar Paramjit Singh and the Petitioner. Admittedly,
TA No. 168 of 2010 [W.P.(C) No.9777 of 2009] Page 10 of 23