@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.@mdashThis application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 14th October, 2002 (Annexure 13)
and the letter dated 24th October, 2002 (Annexure 16), whereby and whereunder, disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him and he
has been asked to attend the proceeding for hearing.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was posted in 23rd Div. Ord. Unit at Ranchi since January, 1998, under the command of Colonel H.C.
Chawla. In February, 1998, he found huge quantity of unauthorized ammunitions and explosives kept in the Unit and a Sepoy of the unit was
caught with live hand-grenade while proceeding on leave. The matter was reported to C.O., Col. H.C. Chawla and then to the G.O.C., H.Q.,
23rd, Inf. Div. and a Court of enquiry was carried out, but it was closed.
According to the petitioner, after the matter became public he was harassed physically and mentally, so he had to make several representations to
the senior military authorities for his posting out of the command of Col. H.C. Chawla as Col. Chawla might implicate him in some false case, but
no notice was taken and the petitioner was harassed further by stopping his authorized Government ration and being socially boycotted from all
regimental functions.
The petitioner brought to the notice of the Controller of Defence Accounts (CDA for short) about huge irregularities in ammunitions and explosives
and CDA carried out enquiry. He found, prima facie, huge irregularities and in the final report, it was established that there was huge loss of State
exchequer.
Further case of the petitioner is that he was falsely implicated in a case of absence from duty in November, 1998 by Col. H.C. Chawla by
destroying best of the evidences and tampering documents, though in a case, this Court issued certain directions and another case, te. WP(S) 1600
of 2002 is pending.
It is alleged that on 10th August, 2002, the petitioner was called by the Commanding Officer, Col. H.C. Chawla where he was seated with two
Majors, namely Major Anil Vishnoi and Major K.S. Gunasekaran who in collusion, assaulted the petitioner and petitioner suffered injury. He was
kept in close arrest by Col. H.C. Chawla, without any charge-sheet served within 48 hours n spite of several requests made by him. The doctors
also found injuries on his wrist and advised to get him examined on 11th October, 2000, but he was not sent for medical examination.
The petitioner further alleged that in contravention to the Army Act, though Rule 180 was invoked but no full opportunity was given to him, in spite
of repeated requests and the Court of enquiry was conducted and completed by one Lt. Col., a Junior Officer. The wife of petitioner, Smt.
Ranjana Anand filed a writ petition for habeas corpus i.e. Cr WJC No. 152 of 2000(R) and during the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner was
transferred to other Unit, where the Medical Officer found injuries on the body of the petitioner. It is stated that the order of transfer was quashed
by the High Court on 6th September, 2000 and direction was given to enquire into the harassment and torture meted out to petitioner. The wife of
the petitioner also filed a Complaint Case No. 599 of 2000 in a competent Court at Ranchi against Col. H.C. Chawla! Major Anil Vishnoi and
Major K.S. Gunasekaran, which is stated to be pending.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that while there is evidence to suggest mala fide on the part of the Officers and a criminal case against
them is pending and cognizance has been taken, during the pendency of the said case, the summary proceeding as made vide order dated 14th
October, 2002 should not proceed.
4. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court''s decision in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Major S.K. Sharma,
In the case referred above, the Supreme Court held that the Army authorities must proceed to hold Court Martial for the trial of the Army
Personnel, in question, or to take other effectual proceeding against accused as contemplated by law.
5. There is no hard and fast rule framed nor any such law laid down by the Supreme Court to withhold a proceeding if the accused has lodged a
separate complaint against officer(s).
6. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any complaint case against any Army Personnel/Officer. It is his wife, Mrs. Ranjana Anand who filed a
Complaint Case No. 599 of 2000, which is pending in a competent Court of law at Ranchi. Merely, on the ground that the wife of the petitioner
has filed a complaint case against one or other Army Officer, cannot be ground to assail the proceeding nor can take away the jurisdiction of
competent authority to proceed departmentally or under any law, as prescribed.
7. In the present case, neither Col. H.C. Chawla nor Major Anil Vishnoi or Major K.S. Gunasekaran have been impleaded as party respondents
by name. In their absence, it is not desirable for this Court to give any finding in respect to such officers.
8. From the writ petition and enclosures attached thereto. It will be evident that the petitioner on one or other ground moved before one or other
Court of law and has become a party to a number of litigations. He filed writ petition, CWJC No. 3118 of 1999(R), wherein the Court refused to
interfere at that stage. Another writ petition, WP(S) No. 1600 of 2002 has been preferred by him which is pending. The wife of the petitioner filed
a Criminal Writ, i.e. Cr WJC No. 153 of 2000(R), wherein certain directions were issued, but no finding was given against any one or other
Officer. The Complaint Case No. 599 of 2000 has been preferred by the wife of the petitioner against the Army Officers.
In this case, I am not supposed to make any observations relating to the merit of the cases, referred to above, but it is noticed that the petitioner,
an Army Personnel all the time, highlighting the internal matters of Indian Army in open public, by filing case either by himself or through his wife
though the wife is not supposed to know the internal affairs of the Army. It would have been better for the petitioner to have availed internal
remedy, at the first instance, before making various acts of Army Personnel public.
9. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to make out any case of mala fide either against Col. H.C. Chawla or Major Anil Vishnoi or Major
K.S. Gunasekaran, nor could make out a case for interference with the proceeding as initiated vide order dated 14th October, 2002.
10. There being no merit, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order, as to costs.