UNION OF INDIA Vs. ASHWANI KUMAR KATOCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This LPA is filed by the Union of India against thejudgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7/07/1988. The learned SingleJudge had quashed the show-cause notice dated 18.2.88 and the order ofremoval dated 15.11.78, passed by the Union of India against the respondent.The respondent was working as a Captain in the Army. He was served witha show-cause notice under Rule 14 of the Army Rules, calling upon him toexplain as to why he should not be removed from service. The show-causenotice reads:-'Show-Cause' Notice Under Army Rule 14(1) It has come to notice that you addressed an application dated 13/08/1977 pertaining to service matters direct to Shri Shanti Bhushan, the LawMinister in violation of the provisions of para 557 'of Regulations for the Army,1962. In doing so you have committed grave irregularity and misconductunbecoming the position, conduct and code of discipline expected of an ArmyOfficer.(2) It is further observed that this is not the first time you have committed a grave irregularity. In the past also you had indulged in acts ofcommission/ommission which were against the norms of army disciplineand unbecoming conduct of an army officer. Some of the instances are asfollows:-

(2.) The respondent filed' his reply to the show-cause notice. In hisreply he submitted that he had not written any letter to Shri Shanti Bhushan,the then Law Minister, on 13.8.77. As regards the direct application to Gen.T.N. Raina, GOC, Eastern Command, in violation of the Army Rules, thesubmission of the respondent was that no action, was taken for four years and,therefore, it could not be used as a ground after the lapse of four years. Asregards the unauthorised occupation of a suit in Simla, he submitted that hewas under a great mental distress at that time on account of the serious illnessof his son and other troubles. The Court of Enquiry which had earlierinvestigated the matter did not take any action against him on this ground.He further submitted that keeping in view his commendable services in thetwo wars against Pakistan, his high academic qualifications and his low medicalcategory as well as his family commitments) he should be given a chance toredeem himself.The explanation of the respondent was found to be unsatisfactory.The GOC-in-C recommended the termination of service of the respondentunder Rule 14. Before doing so a report was obtained by the GOC-in-C fromthe various Commanding Officers under whom the respondent had served fromtime of time. The conclusion was that "in spite of five earlier conviction therespondent was continuing in the acts of indiscipline and .has proved to be anincorrigible person. He was a great liability to the service and was a bad andunhealthy influence on the other officers and on the men he commanded".The Chief of the Army Staff agreed with the recommendation of the actionunder Rule 14. As required by the said Rule the matter was referred to theGovernment of India, which also agreed and the final order of removal w,aspassed under Rule 14.

(3.) In the writ petition the respondent has tried to show that from1968 onwards he had been exposing various officers for their irregular/illegalacts in the army and the action of removal under Rule 14 is because of thebias of the superior officers. In order to justify his action he has assertedthat he had also represented the matter to the Shah Commission, which was theinvestigating into the abuse of power and illegal actions during Emergency bythe Government of Late Mrs. Indira. Gandhi He has also submitted in the petition that some of the grounds relied upon against him were stale and were thesubject matter of the Court of Enquiry earlier. In (this) earlier Enquirieseither the charges have not been proved and where they are proved he hasundergone the punishment for them.