The Chief of the Army Staff, after going through the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry, companysidered that the companyduct of Capt.
An inquiry into the matter was made by Court of Inquiry.
We beard the matter formally again on November 19, 1971.
Rao thereupon filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of removal from service on the ground, inter alia, that Rule 14 of the Army Rules, 1954, was ultra vires the Army Act, 1950, and that the action taken thereunder was without any authority.
In the petition Rao gave a somewhat different version of what had happened.
The allegations were as follows Knowing Kumari Prakash as the daughter of a brother Officer, Rao assisted her in going away from her parents protection and planning to run away with a sepoy.
Rao then took Kumari Prakash to a hotel Saidya Lodge in Hyderabad and got a room to themselves by impersonating and giving a false identity as Mr. Mrs. Prakash.
Rao, by threatening to cause harm to Kumari Prakashs parents, intimidated her to visit his house where he took her in his scooter to the unit lines of 5/11 Gurkha Rifles where he arranged her meeting with a sepoy of the unit.
This is an appeal by the Union of India by way of special leave.
The Central Government found it to be unsatisfactory, and on April 9, 1959, an order was passed removing the respondent from service.
The explanation of Rao was placed before the Central Government.
According to him he did number assist Kumari Prakash to go away from her parents house.
It was alleged that on April 4, 1958, he companymitted acts of gross misconduct.
By memorandum dated September 4, 1958, Rao was called upon to submit his explanation by way of defence regarding the allegations against him.
On April 9, 1959, the Central Government directed removal from service of Capt.
M. Sikri, C.J., The judgment, reproduced below, was drafted by the late Mr. Justice Roy and we all had subscribed to it.
Rao was most unbecoming of an officer.
As he was of opinion that trial of the officer by a General Court Martial was inexpedient, he ordered administrative action to be taken under Rule 14 of the Army Rules, 1954.
We adopt the judgment as our own.
