1
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
O.A. No. 65 of 2014
and
M.A.No.133 of 2014
Wednesday, the 16th day of July 2014
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH
(MEMBER - JUDICIAL) AND
THE HONOURABLE LT GEN K. SURENDRA NATH (MEMBER – ADMINISTRATIVE)
Lt Col RD Sharma Unit 249, C/o 56 APO
Gurgaon, Haryana … Applicant
By Legal Practitioners: M/s. K.Ramesh & M.K.Sikdar
vs.
1. Union of India
Through Secretary Ministry of Defence
New Delhi-110 011.
2. The Chief of Army Staff Through Adjutant General (ADGDV)
Army Headquarters, New Delhi
3. The General Officer Commanding 54 Infantry Division
C/o 56 APO ..Respondents
By Major Suchithra Chellappan,
JAG Officer.
2
ORDER
(Order of the Tribunal made by
Hon’ble Justice V. Periya Karuppiah, Member-Judicial)
1. This Original application has been filed before the Principal Bench,
Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi and was taken on file in O.A.No.182
of 2014. The Hon’ble Principal Bench has directed to return the
application for being presented before this Tribunal on the question of
jurisdiction and accordingly the said Original Application was returned,
taken back by the applicant and was re-presented before this Tribunal
and was taken on file in O.A.No.65 of 2014.
2. The reliefs sought for by the applicant in this Original Application
are, to issue directions to quash and set aside the Convening Order
dated 21.12.2013 passed by Head Quarters 54 Infantry Division against
the applicant being contrary to the judgment of this Tribunal; to issue
directions to the respondents (Army Head Quarters) to cancel the
Discipline and Vigilance Ban dated 28.06.2012 based on the Disciplinary
Attachment Order issued by Army Head Quarters on 01.11.2012 which
was quashed and set aside by this Tribunal already; to pass such other
further orders against the respondents to pay adequate compensation to
the applicant for the harassment caused; and also to impose a penalty
on GOC HQ 54 Infantry Division for again convening a Court of Inquiry
on an issue which is no longer res integra being defiant in nature per se.
3
3. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the application
would be as follows:
A complaint was submitted by Subedar Major Raju Kurian of 18
MADRAS on 12.08.2011 only against the Commanding Officer Col VV
Bhaskar with no iota of complaint against the applicant. A Court of
Inquiry was convened on 29.09.2011 to investigate the veracity of the
complaint. During the proceedings, Army Rule 180 was invoked against
the complainant Sub Maj Raju Kurian and also against the Commanding
Officer Col VV Bhaskar. On 27.09.2012, HQ Southern Command
recommended a Disciplinary Attachment order against Commanding
Officer Col VV Bhaskar and also against the applicant Lt Col RD Sharma.
Despite the fact that Army Rule 180 was not invoked against the
applicant, Army HQ issued a Disciplinary Vigilance Ban against the
applicant dated 28.06.2012 and also imposed a Disciplinary Attachment
Order dated 01.11.2012. Aggrieved over the same, the applicant filed
Original Application No.52 of 2013 in which a full-fledged judgment was
passed in favour of the applicant on 12.09.2013 and the Attachment
Order issued on 01.11.2012 by the Army HQ AG (DV) Directorate stands
quashed and the entire Court of Inquiry was set aside with clear
instructions to stop the disciplinary action against the applicant. A
Demi Official letter was written by the applicant’s counsel to Army
Headquarters on 30.09.2013 with a request to revert him back to the
4
Unit where he was the Officer Commanding. The applicant was reverted
back to his Unit by a proper Movement Order along with a Detention
Certificate dated 07.12.2013. However within a period of 14 days, a
fresh Convening Order for the Court of Inquiry dated 21.12.2013 was
issued exactly on the same issues which were adjudicated and set aside
by the Hon’ble Tribunal. This would be a high-handed act of GOC 54
Infantry Division under whose directions the Convening Order was
issued. Based on the said Convening Order, the applicant was directed
to report to HQ 54 Infantry Division to take part in the Court of Inquiry.
The Convening Order is nothing but a malafide action of the army
authorities and a violation of the judgment rendered in favour of the
applicant, by the Chennai Regional Bench of AFT on 12.09.2013.
Having no other remedy, the applicant is constrained to file another
Original Application on 04.04.2014 before the Principal Bench of AFT,
New Delhi now transferred to Chennai Regional Bench of AFT. A fresh
Convening Order refers to ascertain the old alleged culpability and
lapses of the applicant herein which would be nothing but a contempt of
Court and needs to be corrected to meet the ends of equity, justice and
fair play.
4. The said Convening Order issued by 54 Infantry Division dated
21.12.2013 needs to be quashed and set aside at the very outset in
view of the matter being no longer res integra in the light of the
5
judgment of the Hon’ble AFT Regional Bench, Chennai dated
12.09.2013. Therefore, the applicant seeks for setting aside the
Convening Order and to grant reliefs as prayed for by the applicant in
the application and thus the application be allowed.
5. The brief objections raised in the reply-statement of the
respondents would be as follows:
The assailed Convening Order dated 21.12.2013 has directed
the composition of a Court of Inquiry as a fresh fact-finding body to
ascertain the culpability/lapses by Lt Col RD Sharma and other officers
in a series of events that occurred in 18 MADRAS on a complaint by Sub
Maj Raju Kurian against Col VV Bhaskar and the Report of Col VV
Bhaskar on the events on the night of 20/21 June 2011. Since the said
Convening Order is valid in the eye of law, the request of the applicant
in the application is premature and no prejudice would be caused to him
in ordering a Court of Inquiry which is a fact-finding body to ascertain
the involvement of Lt Col RD Sharma as per the allegations levelled by
Sub Maj Raju Kurian. The judgment of the AFT Regional Bench Chennai
dated 12.09.2013 made in O.A.No.52 of 2013 would not bar the
respondents from initiating a fresh Court of Inquiry as the respondents
were given liberty to take suitable action as deemed fit and only on the
basis of the liberty given in the judgment of the AFT Regional Bench
Chennai, the Convening Order has been issued. Despite no disciplinary
6
action can be initiated on the opinion of the Court of Inquiry vide
Convening Order dated 30.01.2012, it however does not restrain the
Competent Military Authority to order a fresh Court of Inquiry to
ascertain the veracity of the complaint and the Report of the
Commanding Officer. The Court of Inquiry ordered into the allegations
levelled against Col VV Bhaskar dated 12.08.2011 was set aside but the
Hon’ble AFT Regional Bench Chennai vide order dated 12.09.2013 came
to a conclusion that Army Rule 180 was not invoked in respect of the
applicant, when the applicant’s character and military reputation got
impugned on the evidence of P.W.1 who incriminated the applicant
three times in his statement. Since the applicant was the Second-in-
Command of the Battalion, a fresh Court of Inquiry was ordered vide
Convening Order dated 21.12.2013 against the applicant in order to
ascertain his involvement. The assembly of a fresh fact-finding body,
viz., Court of Inquiry was ordered to ascertain the culpability or lapses
by Lt Col RD Sharma in various events as high-lighted by Sub Maj Raju
Kurian in his complaint against Col VV Bhaskar and the Report of the
Commanding Officer. During his tenure, the applicant as 2IC of 18
MADRAS was involved in the incident during the intervening night of 20
and 21 June 2011 at Focolari Camp (Congo) while the Unit was
deployed on UN Mission. The Hon’ble AFT Chennai Regional Bench has
quashed the disciplinary action against the applicant based on the
7
opinion of the Court of Inquiry convened vide Convening Order dated
30.02.2012 on the ground of non-compliance of Army Rule 180 in
respect of the individual during the said Court of Inquiry. Thus the
disciplinary proceedings was quashed on a technical aspect only. It
does not debar the competent military authority to order any fresh
investigation into the matter and pin-point lapses, if any, by Lt Col RD
Sharma or any other individual. In the previous Court of Inquiry even
P.Ws.1, 5, 6, 7 and 23 incriminated the applicant in their evidence.
However Army Rule 180 was not invoked at that time but was invoked
on one occasion when Col VV Bhaskar was questioned by the Court on
10.04.2012 and therefore, the said Court of Inquiry was entirely
quashed against the applicant. The quashment of the said Court of
Inquiry did not bar the competent authority to investigate the
involvement of the applicant into the allegations levelled by Sub Maj
Raju Kurian and the events at Focolari Camp (Congo) on the night of
20/21 June 2011. While the complaint initiated by Sub Maj Raju Kurian
is not specific against any of the officers, accountability of various
commanders/appointment holders within the Command Structure of
the Battalion needs to be ascertained. Hence, the scope of fresh Court
of Inquiry covers lapses, if any, by the officers during discharge of their
duties and does not specifically target Lt Col RD Sharma and therefore,
no vindictiveness and biased attitude against the applicant herein could
8
be inferred. No doubt the judgment of the Hon’ble AFT Chennai
Regional Bench delivered on 12.09.2013 in O.A.No.52 of 2013 quashing
the disciplinary proceedings initiated based on the opinion of the Court
of Inquiry ordered on 30.01.2012 and terminated the Attachment Order
against the applicant. But it did not restrain the Competent Military
Authority from ordering a fresh Court of Inquiry. A Court of Inquiry
convened on 21.12.2013 was mandated to inquire into the specific
reference to the lapses, if any, committed by the applicant and six other
officers and in that sense, the present Court of Inquiry may be treated
as “res integra”. In the fresh Court of Inquiry, the applicant Lt Col RD
Sharma and other officers are merely witnesses and are not the
accused. Hence, no prejudice would be caused to the applicant. The
reliefs sought for is premature and it is preventing the Competent
Military Authority to ascertain the truth in the case. Therefore, the
respondents request that this application may be dismissed as being
devoid of merit and render justice.
6. On the above pleadings, the following points were framed for
consideration:
(1) Whether the fresh Court of Inquiry convened on
21.12.2013 against the applicant is not sustainable for the reasons
stated by the applicant?
9
(2) Whether the applicant is entitled to the relief with regard
to quashment of the Convening Order dated 21.12.2013 passed
against the applicant?
(3) Whether the Discipline and Vigilance Ban dated
28.06.2012 and the Disciplinary Attachment Order issued by Army
HQ on 01.11.2012 are sustainable in view of the judgment of this
Tribunal made in O.A.No.52 of 2013 dated 12.09.2013?
(4) Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation for the
alleged harassment made against him?
(5) To what reliefs, if any, the applicant is entitled for?
7. We heard Mr. K. Ramesh, learned counsel for the applicant and
Maj Suchithra Chellappan, learned JAG Officer assisted by Mr.
M.Dennison, Representative, ATNK & K Area for the respondents. We
have also perused the documents produced and the records of this case.
8. Point Nos.1, 2 and 3: The indisputable facts in this application
would be that the applicant Lt Col RD Sharma filed an Original
Application before this Tribunal in O.A.No.52 of 2013 for the relief of
quashing the Order of Attachment dated 01.11.2012 and tentative
Charge Sheet dated 12.01.2013 and to issue directions to the
respondents to revert him back to his Unit and to declassify the result of
No.3 Selection Board of November 2012. The said application was
10
resisted by the respondents. The submission in that application by the
applicant was allowed to the effect that the Court of Inquiry convened
on the basis of the complaint made by Sub Maj Raju Kurian and the
Report of the Commanding Officer and its proceedings against the
applicant were quashed since the applicant was not given adequate
opportunity under Army Rule 180 on several occasions except on one
occasion when Col VV Bhaskar gave a statement before the said Court
of Inquiry. The request of the applicant towards declaration of result of
No.3 Selection Board which was stated to have been held in November
2012 was not granted as there was no proof produced in that regard.
While quashing the Court of Inquiry proceedings as applicable to the
officers as well as the Attachment Orders passed against the applicant
was set aside, the respondents were also directed to stop disciplinary
action against the applicant based on the findings and opinion of the
said Court of Inquiry. However, the respondents were allowed to take
suitable action as deemed fit.
9. In the background of the above admitted facts, the present
application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the Convening
Order of Court of Inquiry again against the applicant to go into the
allegations made in the complaint of Sub Maj Raju Kurian and on the
report submitted by Col VV Bhaskar. The learned counsel for the
applicant would submit that the earlier judgment of this Tribunal made
11
in O.A.No.52 of 2013 had put a full-stop to the accusation made against
the applicant in the Court of Inquiry proceedings convened on
29.09.2011 and since it was quashed and disciplinary proceedings
initiated consequent to the proceedings against the applicant were also
ordered to be stopped and the charges framed against the applicant
were set aside, nothing survives against the applicant, the present
Convening Order has no locus to stand. He would also draw our
attention to a judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh reported in
AIR 1996 MP 233 between R.P. Shukla and Central Officer
Commanding-in-Chief, Lucknow, a judgment of High Court of
Jammu and Kashmir reported in 1987 LAB.I.C.860 between Vinayak
and Core Commander, Lt. Gen. G.O.C. H.Q. 15 Corps and yet
another judgment of Delhi High Court reported in 43 (1991) Delhi
Law Times (SN) 35 between Col A.K. Bansal and UOI and Ors. in
support of his arguments. Quoting these decisions, the learned counsel
for the applicant would insist in his argument that once the Court of
Inquiry initiated by army authorities without complying with the
mandatory requirement of Rule 180 of Army Rules, the findings of the
Court of Inquiry regarding the applicant would completely be vitiated.
The facts and circumstances discussed in that judgment would go to
show that the summary of evidence and the Summary Court Martial
proceedings initiated on the basis of such findings of Court Martial are
12
found vitiated for not invoking Rule 180 of Army Rules and was found
set aside. As far as this case is concerned, the charges framed on the
basis of the Court of Inquiry proceedings did not culminate in
commencement of the summary of evidence or Court Martial
proceedings nor any punishment has been imposed against the
applicant to vitiate those further proceedings. The previous Court of
Inquiry proceedings was quashed as vitiated and the Attachment Order
passed thereon were set aside and disciplinary proceedings were
directed to be stopped. However the respondents were given an
opportunity to take suitable actions, in accordance with law.
10. The learned JAG Officer would contend that the liberty given by
this Tribunal in the earlier judgment would entail the respondents or the
Competent Military Authority to initiate action against the applicant
since the earlier Court of Inquiry proceedings were vitiated only on
technical ground. Considering the above submissions, we find that the
respondents were at liberty to proceed in accordance with law as per
the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in the earlier judgment since the
complaint of Sub Maj Raju Kurian was not set aside by this Tribunal. It
is clear that the convening of Court of Inquiry is for the purpose of
finding facts and to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made in the
complaint. Therefore, the military authorities are entitled to proceed on
13
the complaint for convening a Court of Inquiry in order to find out the
veracity of the allegations made therein.
11. However it was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant
that the Convening Order would ex facie show bias and discrimination
against the applicant since the Terms of Reference therein would point
towards the culpability/lapses of the applicant. There are six other
officers named in the Convening Order and their role and lapses were
stated to have been investigated. The said Convening Order dated
21.12.2013 is produced as Annexure A.1. It is an admitted fact that the
Court of Inquiry earlier convened against the CO, Col VV Bhaskar on the
basis of the complaint made by Sub Maj Raju Kurian did not mention the
name of the present applicant. During the Court of Inquiry proceedings
only, various witnesses spoke of alleged role of the applicant . Since
Army Role 180 was not invoked properly at that stage and was only
invoked selectively against the applicant when Col VV Bhaskar made a
statement before the Court of Inquiry and thus this Hon’ble Tribunal set
it aside. Those facts would go to show that there was no specific
allegation made against the applicant in the complaint made by Sub Maj
Raju Kurian. The present impugned Convening Order is ordered on the
basis of the same complaint given by Sub Maj Raju Kurian. The other
subject included in this Convening Order is the report of Col VV Bhaskar
about the incident happened in Focolari Camp (Congo) on the night of
14
20/21 June 2011. It is also not disputed by the respondents that there
is no specific accusation against the applicant in that report also.
Therefore, we find that there is no prima facie culpability of the
applicant as per the allegations made in the complaint of Sub Maj Raju
Kurian and in the report of Col VV Bhaskar. For better understanding,
the term of reference is extracted hereunder from the Convening Order.
“ Terms of Reference
2. The Court of Inquiry will :-
(a) Ascertain the veracity of the contents of the complaint dated
12 Aug 2011 submitted by JC-498651X Sub Maj Raju Kurien of
18 MADRAS and culpability of/lapses by IC-55451A Lieutenant
Colonel RD Sharma.
(b) Ascertain the veracity of the contents of a report dated 20
Jun 2011 initiated by IC-46216A Col VV Bhaskar regarding the
incidents that took place during night intervening 20 and 21 Jun
2011 at Focolari Camp (Congo) while 18 MADRAS was deployed
in UN Mission (MONUC) as part of HQ 301 Inf Bde Group. (Copy
att as Appx to this convening order) and culpability of/lapses by
IC-55451A Lieutenant Colonel RD Sharma in the incident.
(c) Ascertain role/lapses of IC-55451A Lieutenant RD Sharma
and other offrs as follows, in incidents above at (a) and (b).
(i) IC-56708M Col Sudheera KP
(ii) IV-58705X Lt Col JS Aswal
(iii) IC-56374H Maj Rajpal Singh
(iv) IC-63499H Maj Kamakhya Singh
15
(v) IC-60933Y Maj Ajit Kumar
(vi) IC-66676H Cap Ritchie Ashwin S “
12. On a careful perusal of the terms of reference it would however
disclose that the Convening Order would ascertain the veracity of the
contents of the complaint dated 12.08.2011 regarding the culpability or
lapses of the applicant herein. Furthermore, the reference would continue
to the effect that the culpability or lapses of the applicant in the incident
that happened at Focolari Camp (Congo) as per the contents of the report
dated 20.6.2011 would also be investigated. When the earlier Convening
Order was not convened against the applicant and he was called as a
witness to the Court of Inquiry and the findings/opinion against him were
quashed and the proceedings were vitiated, there is no basis for ordering the
present Convening Order against him on the alleged contents of the
complaint or report based on the allegations made in the said Court of
Inquiry, which was quashed by this Tribunal. It is also curious to note the
pleadings of the respondents in the reply statement in para-16 that,
“ 16. …….Hon’ble AFT Chennai in their order dt 12 Sep 2013 had
quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated against Lt Col RD Sharma based on
opinion of Court of Inquiry convened on 30 Jan 2012, on the grounds of non
compliance of AR 180. It did not restrain Competent Military Authority to
assemble a fresh Court of Inquiry to ascertain lapses if any, were committed
16
by Lt Col RD Sharma and other offrs, based on events highlighted vide
complaint submitted by Sub Maj Raju Kurian K against Col VV Bhaskar, SM.
At this stage, Lt Col RD Sharma is merely a witness in Court of Inquiry and
not an accused. Hence, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. “
(Emphasis supplied by us)
13. The above plea of the respondents with reference to the Convening
Order would show the applicant only as a witness and not an accused.
However, the said submission is quite contra to the Convening Order in
which the applicant and others were shown as the persons against whom the
Court of Inquiry has been ordered. No doubt the applicant may be a witness
to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made generally in the complaint.
Similarly, the veracity of the contents of the report made by Col VV Bhaskar
should also be investigated. When both the complaint and the report do not
prima facie incriminate the applicant, the Court of Inquiry cannot be asked
to ascertain culpability of/lapses by the applicant in specific. This would
clearly show the biased attitude of the Convening Officer who ordered the
convening of Court of Inquiry on 21.12.2013. The argument of the learned
counsel for the applicant that once the reference made in the Convening
Order is found biased against the applicant, it would show the malafide and
a degree of vindictiveness of the said officer against the applicant cannot be
ignored. No doubt the submission made by the learned counsel for the
applicant is acceptable. In the said circumstances, we are of the considered
17
opinion that the impugned Convening Order is tainted with malafide and bias
against the applicant and is liable to be set aside.
14. The applicant has also sought for a relief that the Attachment Order
already effected against him was set aside in the judgment rendered by this
Tribunal in O.A.No.52 of 2013 dated 12.09.2013 and the Attachment Order
dated 01.11.2012 was quashed, charges framed against the applicant were
also quashed and the respondents were directed to stop disciplinary
proceedings against the applicant and therefore the Attachment Order
should not be continued in the event of setting aside the present Convening
Order. The relief as sought for by the applicant is to the effect to declare
the said Attachment Order dated 01.11.2012 and the Discipline and
Vigilance Ban dated 28.06.2012 should have been cancelled. When the
Discipline and Vigilance Ban dated 28.06.2012 (Annexure A.8) and the
Disciplinary Attachment Order dated 01.11.2012 (Annexure A.6) were
already quashed and the present Convening Order dated 21.12.2013 as
against the applicant is also ordered to be set aside, any Attachment Order
passed against the applicant reverting him back leading to Discipline and
Vigilance Ban, if any, ordered shall also be set aside. Accordingly, Point
Nos.1 to 3 are decided in favour of the applicant.
15. Point No.4: The applicant has asked for compensation from the
respondents for the alleged harassment caused and also to impose penalty
on GOC 54 Infantry Division for the convening of Court of Inquiry once again
18
in the matter which was decided already. The claim was based on the sole
ground that the respondents cannot open the Pandora Box once again as if
it was already decided by this Tribunal in its earlier judgment in respect of
the subject involved therein. We have already answered this point in the
earlier paragraph that the respondents are entitled to proceed with the
investigation on the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the
report in order to find out the truth. There is no doubt that the Convening
Order was tainted with malafide, bias and vindictiveness against the
applicant. But the applicant has asked for compensation on the foot that the
convening authorities have no legal sanctity to convene a Court of Inquiry
which was put an end by this Tribunal in its earlier judgment. We also find
that the respondents are always entitled to investigate into the veracity of
the statements made in the complaint and the report, by constituting a
Court of Inquiry in a proper and lawful manner. Our finding is also to the
effect that the Court of Inquiry convened on 21.12.2013 against the
applicant was convened when there was no prima facie allegations made
against the applicant in the complaint made by Sub Maj Raju Kurian and as
well in the report submitted by Col VV Bhaskar regarding the incident
happened at Focolari Camp (Congo). The claim of compensation has thus
no foot to stand. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any compensation
to the applicant as sought for by him. Accordingly, this point is decided
against this applicant.
19
16. Point No.5: From the discussions held on the above points, the
applicant is entitled to the reliefs regarding quashment of the convening
order dated 21.12.2013 against the applicant. The Discipline and Vigilance
Ban dated 28.06.2012 and the Disciplinary Attachment Order dated
01.11.2012 issued against the applicant were already quashed and set aside
in the earlier judgment of this Tribunal and the Attachment Order if any
ordered against the applicant in pursuance of the Convening Order dated
21.12.2013 is also not sustainable. However, the applicant was not found
entitled to the compensation as asked for by him.
17. In the background of granting these reliefs, we make it clear that the
respondents are always at liberty to find out the truth and inquiring into the
veracity of the allegations made in the complaint made by Sub Maj Raju
Kurian and the report submitted by Col VV Bhaskar regarding the incident at
Focolari Camp (Congo) by initiating a fresh Convening Order generally and
the applicant cannot be named in such a Convening Order and shall be
proceeded in accordance with law. Since we find malafide and biased
attitude against the applicant on the part of GOC 54 Infantry Division, any
Court of Inquiry to be convened on the basis of the same complaint and the
report shall be done, by a Formation Commander, outside the jurisdiction of
54 Infantry Division. No member/Presiding Officer shall be nominated who
is on the present rolls of 54 Infantry Division for the said Inquiry. However,
the Court of Inquiry, if convened is at liberty to call forth any witness to
20
depose while investigating the said complaint and Report and give its
findings and opinions, thereon, in accordance with law.
18. In fine, the application filed by the applicant is partly allowed with the
above directions and observations. No order as to costs.
19. M.A.No.133 of 2014 : In view of the order passed in O.A.No.65 of
2014 setting aside the impugned Convening Order dated 21.12.2013, the
interim stay already granted is made absolute in respect of the applicant
only. Consequently, application to vacate stay is dismissed.
Sd/ Sd/
LT GEN K. SURENDRA NATH JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH
MEMBER (ADMINISTRATIVE) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
16.07.2014
(True copy)(True copy)(True copy)(True copy)
Member(J) – Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No
Member (A) – Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No
vs
21
To
1.The Secretary
Ministry of Defence New Delhi
2. The Chief of Army Staff
Through Adjutant General (ADGDV) Army Headquarters, New Delhi
3. The General Officer Commanding
54 Infantry Division C/o 56 APO
4. M/s. K.Ramesh and M.K.Sikdar Counsel for applicant.
5. Major Suchithra Chellappan,
JAG Officer, For Respondents.
6. OIC/Legal Cell,
ATNK & K Area, Chennai-600009.
7. Library, AFT/RBC, Chennai.
22
Hon’ble Justice V.Periya Karuppiah
(Member-Judicial) and
Hon’ble Lt Gen K.Surendra Nath (Member -Administrative)
O.A.No 65 of 2014
and M.A.No.133 of 2014
Dt: 16.07.2014