DEPUTY COMMANDANT AND CHIEF INSTRUCTOR, OFFICERS TRAINING ACADEMY, MADRAS Vs. COMMANDANT, OFFICERS TRAINING ACADEMY MADRAS AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from proceeding with the charge sheet dated May 20, 1997 without complying with the procedure prescribed under Rule 22 of the Army Rules, 1954 by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses and to put his defence witnesses and his statement as provided therein.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he joined the Military service as Commissioned officer (II Lieutenant) in the year 1966. Since then he has served at various places and held different posts for the past 32 years. He was promoted to the rank of Brigadier in the year 1993 and has served as Commanding officer and also as a Brigade Commander and administered independent stations and units. Thereafter, he was transferred and posted to his present office at Madras as Deputy Commandant and Chief Instructor, Officers Training Academy in the month of July, 1995. It is also contended that after his placement at Madras, since he questioned some of the irregular and malpractices of the first respondent in his administration, some frictions developed with him. Further, one Colonel M. A. Deviah, HOTT, junior to the petitioner, wrote a letter dated March 10, 1997 to the petitioner stating that he (petitioner) has used abusive language against him. On the basis of the complaint, the first respondent after framing charges, conducted an enquiry. It is also contended that as per Rule 22 of the Army Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "The Rules"), the first respondent has to follow all strict procedures and give ample opportunity to the petitioner. Without providing or affording Proper opportunity, the first respondent hurriedly conducted the enquiry against the petitioner, which is contrary to the mandates of Rule 22 of the Rules. Since the above violation has prejudiced the petitioner and it may not be possible for him to defend the ultimate enquiry, the petitioner has approached this Court for appropriate relief.

(3.) The first respondent filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. It is contended that the present writ petition at this stage is not maintainable, since the same has been filed against the pre -decisional stage, when the preliminary enquiry itself is in progress any interference at this stage, would scuttle as well as stifle the inquiry. It is also contented that the tentative charge has been served on the petitioner on May 20, 1997. The procedure prescribed under Rule 22 of the Rules was fully complied with and the principles of natural justice have been adhered to. The outcome of the preliminary enquiry would not result in any punishment straightaway. The procedure contemplated under Rule 24 of the Rules have to be followed then. They also denied the various averments with regard to the merits of the charges. It is further contended that when the first respondent informed the petitioner that prosecution witnesses would presently be examined, the petitioner sought three hours time to prepare his defence. The first respondent has granted the request of the petitioner and adjourned the hearing for 16.45 hours on the same day. The above proceedings were conducted in the presence of two independent witnesses. After affording reasonable opportunity only a preliminary enquiry was conducted and any 5(unreasonable delay in the disposal of the disciplinary case would have adversely affected and is indeed affecting discipline, training and administration of the Academy. those circumstances, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.