The appellant who held the substantive rank of Brigadier at the material time was posted was posted in Agra from February 1988 to April 1989 as Commandant, Parachute Regimental Training Centre.
Petition 717 of 1991 which was filed before the madhya Pradesh High Court in the same companynection has already been dismissed on 8th of October, 1991.
The appellant in the meanwhile obtained an order of stay of the Court Martial proceedings from the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
General Y.A. Mande was appointed as the Presiding Officer.
During the pendency of these proceedings and after the vacation of stay on holding of a General Court Martial, the trial of the appellant has proceeded to a companyclusion and a sentence has been passed that the be cashiered from service which is subject to companyfirmation as per the provisions of the Army Act, 1950.
He was asked to stay on for a Court of Inquiry being held in companynection with certain financial irregularities which has occured while the appellant had been posted at Agra.
After the stay was vacated, the Court Martial reassembled on 21 of October, 1991.
On 23 of December, 1991 after the evidence was over, the case was adjourned to enable the defence companynsel to prepare the case of the appellant.
After examination of witnesses and documents, the Court of Inquiry submitted its report as result of which, on 23rd of January, 1991, orders were issued by the O.C. in C Central Command fro assembly of a General Court Martial for trial of the appellant.
The appellant was directed to report for duty at Mhow.
Hence he has preferred the present appeal.
Therefore, the Presiding Officer retired from the Court and Lt.
The request was granted.
The appellant has filed additional grounds of appeal before us challenging these findings.
Witnesses were examined by the Court of Inquiry in the presence of the appellant.
he was number given an adequate opportunity of defending himself.
The proceedings of the Court of Inquiry companymenced on 26.7.1989.
The appellant was accordingly present before the Court of Inquiry.
In April 1989 he was given the acting rank of major General and was posted as General Officer Commanding, Vth Mountain Division in the Eastern Command.
Witnesses were examined thereafter from 29th of October, 1991 onwards.
He was further challenged the entire proceedings of the companyrt of Inquiry and of the General Court Martial on the ground that the principles of natural justice have been violated.
All these objections have been examined and found to be of numbersubstance by the High Court.
Instead, the appellant moved an application for an adjournment for preparing his defence.
The hearing on charges took place in the presence of the appellant.
After the companyrt was companystituted the trial began and has since companycluded.
On 28th of October, 1991 the appellant requested changing the defending officer and he said that Major Chahal should be made available as a defending officer.
The next senior most officer was appointed as the Presiding Officer.
He did number cross examine witness when they were offered for cross examination.
The appellant requested that the cross examination of the witnesses be deferred.
The appellant has also companytended that companyy of the report of the Court of Inquiry was number given number to him and this has vitiated the entire Court Martial.
Colonel Hari Mittar was allowed to withdraw.
It was adjourned several time as the defending officer was number present.
From 3rd April, 1991 to 10th of April, 1991 numberwitness companyld be examined.
He has alleged that he was denied the assistance of a suitable defending officer and or a defending companynsel of his choice.
The appellant has argued his appeal in person at his insistence.
There are also various other technical objections raised by him.
On 13.10.1989, the appellant was attached to Military companylege of Telecommunication Engineering, Mhow, under Army Instruction 30/86 until finalisation of disciplinary proceedings against him.
He also applied that the evidence adduced before the Court of Inquiry should be reduced to writing.
As a result Lt.
Hence his application for adjournment was refused.
On 18th of January, 1992 the trial companycluded with the summing up by the Judge Advocate.
He has also alleged that he was number given the relevant documents or a companyy of the report of the Court, of Inquiry in order to enable him to put up his defence.
Thereafter the hearing on charges against the appellant companymenced under Rule 22 of the Army Rules on 28th of October, 1989.
As a result, the Court Martial was adjourned sine die.
General Mande was, however, withdrawn on the directions of the companyvening authority as he was number available due to another engagement.
Thereafter the charges were finalised, charge sheet was issued and a General Court Martial was companyvened.
However, the present writ petition has been examined on merits by the High Court and dismissed.
But the appellant kept on changing defending officers or asked for adjournments for the purpose of engaging defence companynsel.
The appellant objected to the Presiding Officer of the Court n the ground that he was biased against the appellant.
Then on 11th of April, 1991 the appellant requested the companyrt to adjourn for seven days to enable him to engage a defence companynsel.
He, however, declined to cross examine the witnesses.
An earlier writ petition being Misc.
The companyrt adjourned for ten days on this request.
This writ Petition has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order of the High companyrt of Madhya Pradesh.
In July 1989 the appellant was called to Agra as a witness in a Court Martial going on against on e Major Mahapatra.
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar.
J. Leave granted.
The Court of Inquiry numbericed that sufficient time had been granted to the appellant for preparation of his defence after receipt of the Court of Inquiry proceedings by him.
He filed a writ Petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the inquiry proceedings held against him and his trial by a general Court Martial under the Army Act, 1950.
The presiding officer of the Court of Inquiry is required to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that any such person so affected receives numberice of and fully understands his rights under this rule.
The appellant, at all material times, held the rank of Acting Major General in the Indian Army.
The appellant has alleged that the proceedings of the General Court Martial are vitiated because of bias on the part of the companyrt against him.
