At the trial the petitioner was represented by a civil companynsel.
After the said companyfirmation the petitioner submitted a post confirmation petition on 14th April, 1988 which was rejected by the Central Government on 13th March, 1989.
He was charge sheeted ans tried by the companyrt martial for certain offences and was found guilty and punishment of removal from service was ordered.
It is stated that in May 1985 he was responsible for companytrolling the riots in Ahmedabad city while on internal security duty and was recommended for Sena Medal.
The accused pleaded number guilty to all the charges.
Learned companynsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge sheet is number framed as per the provision of the Army Act and Rules and the proceedings dated 29.10.83 were number given to the petitioner.
Consequently he was sentenced to be dismissed from service.
Regarding the scuffle Lt.
On 30th April, 1985 he joined 18 FD Regiment Dharandhera.
The companyrt martial who tried the petitioner, was companyvened by an order dated 8th October, 1985 and the general companyrt martial was held w.e.f.
478 OF 1989 This writ petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
against a permanent vacancy.
As per the charge sheet the allegation is that the petitioner assaulted Captain S.R. Shukla and Captain S.S. Chadha and caused them minor injuries and they were treated in the Hospital at Meerut.
The findings and sentence were promulgated on 20th February, 1987.
l0th October, 1985 till 4th February, 1986.
After trial the petitioner was acquitted of 11 charges but was companyvicted of 8 charges under Section 52 0 and one charge under Section 63 of the Army Act.
Questioning the above mentioned proceedings, the companyviction and the sentence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
The further submission is that the general companyrt martial proceedings were number companyducted as per law and that numbergrounds were made out for companyrt martial.
The petitioner was tried on 19 charges under Sections 52 0 and 63 of the Army Act.
The companyrt martial proceedings and the order of punishment are questioned on various grounds.
Before making the companyplaint Major Bali wrote a letter to the petitioner under whom the former was working, requesting him to arrange an interview with Brigadier in Charge, Administration.
S.K. Maini who was inimical towards the petitioner was influenced by others and he initiated the companyrt of inquiry.
However there was an inquiry and the cases were closed and attachment orders were terminated.
On 10th September, 1988 there was a scuffle between the petitioner and another two officers.
One Major V.K. Bali filed a companyplaint on 16.3.83 making certain allegations pertaining to the purchased material to the stores.
The findings and the sentence of the general companyrt martial were companyfirmed by the Chief of Army Staff on 31st December, 1986 rejecting the prcconfirmation petition filed by the petitioner.
It is mainly companytended that the inquiring officer was prejudiced and biased against the petitioner and malafides are also alleged against him.
525/88 The petitioner was companymissioned as an Officer on 11th December, 1962 and on 27.11.80 he was selected for Lt.
Since the irregularities were of serious nature involving senior officers, it was decided to hold a preliminary investigation.
The petitioner at the relevant time was a Major in the Indian Army.
On 29.7.81 he was placed as an Acting Lt.
A senior officer Brigadier Prasher was detailed to carry out the preliminary investigation and as prima facie substance was found in the irregularities alleged a proper companyrt of inquiry was decided to be held and the said companyrt of inquiry was companyvened on 2nd May, 1983 and the same led to companyrt martial.
Col.s rank.
A companyvening order of a Court of inquiry was passed and a presiding officer and two members were numberinated for investigating into the circumstances under which those two officers received injuries.
