MAJOR JAGJIT SINGH DHILLON Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Major Jagjit Singh Dhillon, joined as an Officer Cadet lor temporary Commission in the Indian Army at Poona on November 5, 1949, He married Rattan Randhawa of village Jalal Usman in Amritsar district on May 24, 1957. and after two days of the marriage he went back to Ms duty leaving his wife in the village. IV alleges that he did not meet his wife thereafter. On May 17, 1958, the petitioner alleges to have received a telegram from his brother Dharam singh intimating the death of his wife Shrimati Rattan Randhawa. On the basis of that telegram the petitioner informed the authorities concerned of the casualty and the fact of her death was published under Part II, Order No. 348 dated June 18, 1958 (Officers ). The petitioner did not leave for the village in spite of the news about his wife's death. In December, 1959, the petitioner was transferred from his unit in Jammu and Kashmir to Southern Command, Signal Regiment, Jabalpur. While posted there, he married Shrimati Surjit Kaur at Ludhiana on March 31, 1960, after obtaining the permission of the authorities of his Department.

(2.) ONE Rattan Kaur, resident of village and Post Office Jalal Usman, sent an application dated January 24, 19g1, to the Commander-in-Chief (General thimaya), Army Headquarters, New Delhi, stating that she was married to the petitioner on May 24, 1957, and that during her lifetime the petitioner had married surjit Kaur belonging to Ludhiana where she was working as a Professor of English in the Government College for Women. She thus complained that the petitioner had ruined her life and made a request for an enquiry into the matter. The petitioner was sent a copy of the complaint of Shrimati Rattan Kaur and was asked to submit his explanation which he did on February 13, 1961. Thereafter he filed a complaint under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of Magistrate 1st class, Jabalpur, against the said Rattan Kaur, wherein a compromise was arrived at on August 21, 1961. The compromise was recorded in the form of a deed wherein Rattan Kaur admitted that she had falsely and maliciously made deliberate oral and written allegations against the petitioner alleging that she had been married to him on May 24. 1957, at village Jalal Usman, tehsil and district amritsar, and she had been deceitfully deserted by the petitioner. On the basis of this deed of compromise Shrimati Rattan Kaur was acquitted under Section 345 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the petitioner did not want to pursue his complaint. She swore another affidavit dated August 31, 1951, which was attested by Shri. Brijmohan Lal, Oath Commissioner, Batala, in which she stated that she was never married or had any relations whatsoever with the petitioner and that the allegations made by her in the application submitted to the military authorities against the petitioner were false and fabricated and that she made those allegations at the instigation of some enemies of the petitioner. Copies of the deed of compromise and the affidavit were sent to the military authorities but on May 23, 1961, the Officer Commanding, Poona, requested the District Magistrate, amritsar, to investigate into the allegations made by Shrimati Rattan Kaur. The district Magistrate directed the Naib Tehsildar to make necessary enquiries into the allegations made by Shrimati Rattan Kaur. The Naib Tegsukdar submitted his report to the District Magistrate stating that the allegations made by Shrimati rattan Kaur were correct and on the basis of that report the District Magistrate, amritsar, forwarded his report to the Army authorities to the effect that the said rattan Kaur was the wife of the petitioner and the petitioner by contracting marriage with Shrimati Surjit Kaur appeared to be guilty of plural marriages. A similar report was sent by the Punjab Government to the military authorities but it is admitted in the return that the enquiries made by the Naib Tehsildar were at the back of the petitioner who was not informed nor was associated. The District magistrate did not make any enquiry independently nor did the Punjab government. Thus the report about plural marriages of the petitioner was made without complying with the principles of natural justice. However, suspecting that Shrimati Rattan Kaur had been coerced into making statements on oath that she was not married to the petitioner and that she had made false allegations at the instance of some enemies of the petitioner, the Army authorities issued a Show cause Notice under Army Rule 14 to the petitioner on November 7, 1963, on the allegation that he had married Shrimati Surjit Kaur during the lifetime of Shrimati rattan Kaur and he had falsely alleged that Shrimati Rattan Kaur had died in May, 1958. This notice was issued in pursuance of the order of the Chief of the Army staff as it was mentioned in the notice "the above case was placed before the chief of the Army Staff who considers that your further retention in the service is not desirable and has directed me to initiate administrative action under Army rule 14 for the termination of your services. " The petitioner filed Civil Writ No. 279 of 1964 (Punj) in this Court challenging the Show Cause Notice dated November 7, 1963. The main contention raised was that Rule 14 of the Indian Army Rules was ultra vires the Army Act and, therefore, the notice issued under that Rule was bad in law. A Division Bench of this Court, Mahajan and Narula, JJ. , held Rule 14 of the indian Army Rules to be ultra vires agreeing with the decision of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 403-D of 1959 Capt. S. K. Rao v. Union of india, D/- 23-2-1967 (Delhi ). On that view of the matter the petition was accepted and the Show Cause Notice was quashed by order dated March 24, 1967. It may be stated here that the Show Cause Notice dated November 7, 1963, was withdrawn by the Union of India and another notice dated April 9, 1964 was issued before the decision of C. W. No. 279 of 1964 (Punj ). The Union of India has gone up in appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Division Bench and that appeal has not yet been decided,

(3.) ON April 11, 1969, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, for and on behalf of the President, directed the issue of Show Cause Notice to the petitioner on the same allegations as were made in the Show Cause Notice dated November 7, 19g3, and April 9, 19g4, asking him to show cause why his services should not be terminated under Section 18 of the Army Act. The Show Cause Notice was served on the petitioner by the Officiating Officer Commanding on May 3, 19g9. To this notice the petitioner submitted an interim explanation on May 3, 1969, and thereafter filed the present writ petition in this Court challenging the issue of the show Cause Notice to him on May 3, 1969, which was admitted on July 14, 1969, and was directed to be heard within two months. The return to the petition has been filed by Capt. Jasbir Singh, Staff Capt. Station Headquarters, Chandigarh.