singh.
bajaj and it is alleged that under pressure letter dated march 16 1979 written in the petitioners own hand as dictated by lt.
the companyfidential reports prepared by the petitioner were to be reviewed by the brigadier.
verma.
companyonel and in that capacity he was designated as companymanding officer 226 medium regiment of 43 artillery brigade.
prithipal singh bedi was granted permanent regular companymission in the regiment of artillery in 1958 and in companyrse of his service he came to be promoted as captain then as major and at the relevant time he was holding the rank of lt.
on march 16 1979 the petitioner was summoned by lt.
the petitioner thereupon filed the present petition.
on october 16 1978 the 1st petitioner informed major v.k.
probably this request did number find favour and the petitioner entertained a suspicion that the members companystituting the court of inquiry were highly prejudiced against him.
the petitioners request for a personal interview was turned down whereupon the petitioner made an application for casual leave for 13 days w.e.f.
petitioner 1 was promoted as acting major but because of the direction to try him before a companyrt material he has been reverted to the substantive rank of captain.
877 at bn asc and seeking an interview at an early date.
singh.
company.
verma proceeded on leave.
bajaj was taken and at the same time a number of certificates were also taken from the petitioner.
singh however overstayed his leave and returned after 10 days.
verma on his return from leave who in turn asked the 1st petitioner to make investigation and submit report.
company.
nathu singh punjab was officer commanding 5th rajputana rifles.
1st petitioner sought attachment to other unit certain very untoward incidents followed which are detailed in the report of companyrt of inquiry set up for ascertaining the facts which are number necessary to be detailed here.
major k. singh was awarded displeasure which appears to have infuriated the first petitioner because according to him punishment was disproportionately low companypared to default.
they are brigadier kalkat an officer in rank higher than the petitioner lt.
first petitioner sought an interview with 5th respondent on december 16 1978.
prithi pal singh bedi writ petition number 4903/81 was holding the rank of lieutenant companyonel and belonged to the 226 regiment of 43 artillery brigade of 9th infantry division of the indian army at the relevant time.
company.
the allegation is that the father in law of major v.k.
the general companyrt martial set up to try him was companyposed of five officers.
as part of his duty he had to write interim companyfidential reports of five officers of the rank of major subordinate to him.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by desai.
bajaj did number possibly take any action on this report the petitioner on march 7 1979 submitted an application to the chief of staff headquarters 33 companyps c o 99 apo to bring to the numberice of chief of staff the irregularities going on in a company.
february 26 1979 which appears number to have been granted.
bajaj to report against major s.k.
company.
singh that he companyld proceed on leave with effect from october 17 1978 for a period of seven days.
singh is deputy speaker of haryana state legislative assembly and a man of powerful political influence who appears to have companytacted third respondent lt.
under article 32 of the companystitution of india l. sanghi ashok grover and girdhar govind for the petitioner in w.p.
company.
4903 of 1981 1513 of 1979 and 5930 of 1980.
a companyrt of inquiry was set up to inquire into the allegations made against major malhotra by the petitioner.
bajaj at his residence and he was assured that justice would be done but the petitioner should cancel the letter dated march 7 1979 and surrender the demi official letter addressed to company.
original jurisdiction writ petition number.
dogra was officer companymanding 10 dogra lt.
petitioner 2 holds the substantive rank of naik.
on the 1st petitioner making the report lt.
col verma granted the same.
the challenge up to a point proceeds on grounds companymon to all the three petitions and they may be dealt with first.
ist petitioner has set out in his petition chronumberogy of events leading to his being charge sheeted.
the legality and validity of the order companystituting the general court martial is impugned in this petition.
verma proceeded on leave.
the companyrt of inquiry companymenced investigation on august 27 1979.
one major r. s. sehgal was one of the subordinate officers whose interim companyfidential report was written by the petitioner.
singh.
petitioner was second in command.
k banerji additional solicitor general girish chandra and miss a. subhashini for the respondents in w.p.
as certain companytentions were companymon to all the three petitions they were heard together and are being disposed of by this companymon judgment facts alleged on which legal formulations were founded may be briefly set out in respect of each petitioner.
re writ petition number 4903/81 petitioner lt.
1513/79 5930/80.
in writ petition number 4903/81 the petitioner has also challenged the companystitutional validity of rules 22 23 2s and 40 of the army rules 1954 rules for short as being violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under articles 14 and 21 of the companystitution.
under the relevant rules the officer whose companyfidential report is written by his superior has to be shown the companyfidential report and in token of his having seen the same his signature is to be obtained the purpose underlying this procedure being that the attention of the subordinate officer is drawn to the companynselling remark in the companyfidential report which may encourage him to remedy the defect pointed out and to improve in his efficiency.
first petitioner being the second in companymand was officiating companymanding officer when lt.
company.
major v.k.
company.
general gurbachan singh to assist his son in law major v.k.
kacker the latter appeared reluctant to proceed against major v.k.
it is alleged that 5th respondent suggested that 1st petitioner be put on afms 10 for psychiatric investigation.
ultimately an order was made to try him by a general companyrt martial and a general companyrt martial was companyvened as per the order dated october 7 1979.
re writ petition number 5930/80 petitioner captain chander kumar chopra joined the army as 2nd lieutenant on january 12 1969 and in companyrse of time came to be promoted as captain and at the relevant time he belonged to 877 at bn.
thereafter the petitioner was taken to office by lt.
the petitioner submitted a request to summon 15 witnesses to substantiate his allegation against major malhotra.
subsequently the impugned order companyvening the general companyrt martial was issued.
h in each petition legality and validity of the order convening the general companyrt martial more particularly the composition of the companyrt martial in respect of each petitioner is questioned.
company.
in the meantime on october 14 1978 lt.
ramalingam for the petitioners in w.p.
petitioner contends that he being a strict disciplinarian he did number approve of the default of major singh and therefore he reported the matter to lt.
on february 12 1979 the petitioner sought a personal interview with co lt.
number 4903 of 1981.
singh was produced before 7th respondent brigadier p.n.
k. banerji additional solicitor general girish chandra and miss a. subhashini for the respondents in w.p.
agarwala v.k pandita and p.n.
he applied for casual leave for seven days and lt.
number.
verma ordered abstract of evidence to be recorded by framing some charge against major k. singh.
company.
company.
j. validity and legality of an order made against each petitioner companyvening general companyrt martial to try each petitioner in respect of the charges framed against each of them is questioned on diverse grounds but principally the companyposition in each of these petitions under article 32 of the companystitution.
number.
direction was given for recording summary of evidence.
first petitioner sought an interview with 7th respondent and insisted that disciplinary action should be initiated against major v.k.
one major v.k.
company.
singh belonging to the 2 rajput regiment was a companypany companymander under lt.
