COLONEL SANDES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question involved in this writ petition is, "whether the respondents were right in having initiated writing of the impugned Interim confidential Report (for short "icr") of the petitioner for the period from 01. 09. 1999 to 24. 03. 2000, despite pendency of a Court of Inquiry (hereinafter referred to "coi") in respect of the incident dated 27th February, 2000 which was likely to affect the Character and Military reputation of the petitioner being the commanding officer of the Unit under Scrutiny without following rule 180 of the Army Rules 1954 and in violation of Para 26 of the Special Army order (3/s/89)".

(2.) THE petitioner was granted permanent commission in the Indian Army on 16. 12. 1978. During 1. 9. 1999 to 24. 3. 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the relevant period"), he was working as Colonel and was commanding 17 Maratha LI in jammu and Kashmir. One of the posts under the control of the Unit was "ashok post" (hereinafter referred to as "the said post") situated at the border in the kargil area. Unfortunately, on 27th February, 2000 the said post was attacked by Pakistani Troops resulting in the seven fatal casualties, injury to three while a JCO went missing. There were also loss of weapons and equipments. A COI was ordered in the first week of March 2000 by Brigadier R. K. Saigal who also happened to be the Initiating officer (for short "io") of the petitioner for the relevant period to find out the reasons which resulted in casualties, injuries to jawans beside loss of weapons and equipments. The inquiry was also to fix the responsibility of the persons responsible for the incident.

(3.) THE petitioner was neither specifically implicated nor was given any opportunity to participate in the inquiry in accordance with the provisions of rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Army Rules" ). However soon after setting up the COI, Brigadier R. K. Saigal also issued a warning letter dated 13th March, 2000 to the petitioner blaming him for the aforesaid incident. On 24th March, 2000 Brigadier Saigal initiated an Interim confidential Report (for short "icr") for the relevant period in respect of the work and conduct of the petitioner despite pendency of the COI which, was likely to affect the character and military reputation of the petitioner being the commanding Officer of the Unit under scrutiny. The pen picture of the petitioner forming part of the ICR described the aforesaid incident as a case of "command failure" on the part of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the impugned ICR also affected chances of his promotion to the next rank despite his overall "above Average Profile".