‘To Err is Human, to Forgive Divine’: Himachal Pradesh High Court Converts Dismissal of Ex-Army Officer into Compulsory Retirement

The long legal battle of retired Army officer Major Omkar Singh Guleria has finally drawn to a close. Nearly two decades after his troubles began, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside his dismissal from service as Deputy Director of Sainik Welfare and instead ordered his compulsory retirement—observing that the punishment originally imposed was “so harsh as to shock the conscience of the court.”

A division bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma also quashed contempt proceedings pending against him, quoting poet Alexander Pope’s timeless words: “To err is human, to forgive divine.”

A Two-Decade Struggle

Major Guleria’s difficulties date back to 2005, when he opposed the use of a soldiers’ rest house as a temporary court complex. In a letter dated July 26, 2005, addressed to the then Chief Justice and others, he raised concerns over the treatment of military personnel and even invoked the sacrifice of “Kargil martyrs.” The letter triggered disciplinary action, and after he refused to participate in an inquiry, he was dismissed from service in June 2007.

Now 74, Guleria has retracted his earlier statements and tendered an unconditional apology. Citing poor health—including cancer, hypertension, and disability in his right leg—he requested that all penalties against him be annulled, sought restoration of benefits, and asked for contempt proceedings to be dropped.

Court’s Reasoning

The bench noted that Guleria had served diligently for 17 years and that his conduct was consistent with his military background—“firm and persistent, but not dishonest.” The judges stressed that his years of service could not be ignored and that the disciplinary authority had failed to consider this when imposing dismissal, which resulted in the loss of pensionary and gratuity benefits.

The court further observed that his protests were “misguided, not malicious,” driven by his dismay at the temporary use of the rest house for judicial purposes, rather than by any personal animosity. It emphasized that the case involved neither dishonesty nor moral turpitude, but rather a misplaced stance fueled by conviction.

A Humane Approach

The bench remarked that contempt proceedings were initiated only because of his defiant tone, reflecting his military background and tendency to stand firm, without recognizing that the premises were meant for public use.

Citing the principle of judicial mercy, the court ruled:
“Given that the appellant has now tendered an unconditional apology through affidavit, and considering that he is a senior citizen in the final stage of his life, we find it appropriate to substitute the penalty of dismissal with an order of compulsory retirement.”

The court directed the state to process his case for release of all consequential benefits within two months and formally set aside the contempt proceedings.