BRIGADIER M S OBEROI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner in this case is a very senior officer of the armed forces and he has through the present petition assailed the correctness of the order passed by the central government under section 19 of the army act on 23-4-1991 compulsorily retiring him from service. The order proceeds on the footing that the petitioner is alleged to have been guilty of certain acts which, in the opinion of the army authorities and the central government constituted serious misconduct which justified a direction to him to resign from service. The petitioner at that point of time had more or less agreed to this proposal but had requested that he should be permitted to resign from a slightly later date. This was unacceptable whereupon the order in question came to be passed. The petitioner has through the present petition challenged the validity of that order principally on the ground that it was unjustified. He relies on the fact that as far as his long career as an officer of the indian army was concerned that it was not only unblemished but that it was on the other hand distinguished. It is his contention that certain allegations were made against him by a brother officer and that at the relevant time, the marital relations between the petitioner and his wife were unfortunately strained: the petitioner's wife had also lodged a complaint to the army wives' welfare association, the cumulative effect of this complaint was that in march 1990, the petitioner was administered a warning. In june of that year, he was served with a show-cause notice wherein a series of instances has been related.

(2.) in sum and substance, the show-cause notice proceeds on the footing that one lt. Col. Sandhu had alleged that the petitioner is supposed to have got friendly with his wife. Thereafter, various instances have been cited All of which are to the effect that the petitioner is supposed to have been meeting the lady in question at various places and it is alleged that some sort of illicit affair had taken place between the two of them. There are also references to the petitioner's conduct vis-a-vis his own wife and the complaint lodged by her. The authorities have however concluded that the instances in question, since they concern senior army officers and their respective wives would result in a lot of embarrassment not only to them but to the army itself, if a full-fledged enquiry were to be conducted and having regard to the nature of the charges and the persons concerned, the petitioner was informed that the authorities were of the view that it was inexpedient to hold an enquiry. He was therefore asked to show cause as to why action against him for having committed serious misconduct should not be taken. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge-sheet if it can be called one and dealt with each of the instances in question. The reply indicates that the petitioner has admitted having known the sandhus. This is nothing unusual because the petitioner had pointed out that as a brother officer not only he but respective families, had occasion to inter-act quite a lot. The petitioner had denied the charges that he had in any manner misbehaved with the wife of a brother officer or for that matter that he had indulged in any clandestine activities with her. He has also met the charges virtually item by item and I find from the reply submitted that none of the acts of alleged misconduct have been admitted by him.

(3.) after the submission of this reply, the petitioner was informed that on a consideration of the material, that the army authorities and the government of India were of the view that the allegations against him stood proved and that consequently, he was directed to resign from service. As indicated earlier, the petitioner asked that he be continued for some short period of time but this request was denied and the impugned order came to be passed. It is this order that has been challenged in the present petition.