On companysideration of materials, it was observed that there was irrefutable evidence of plural marriage and disgraceful companyduct of number only sleeping with Miss Anna in the presence of his legally wedded wife, but also use of criminal force against his wife.
It was appellants stand that in view of the said statement he should number be required to submit his explanation in view of Rule 16 4 of the Rules.
The background facts leading to the passing of the order of companypulsory retirement are as under Appellant was appointed to the permanent Commission as a Pilot Officer in the Logistics Branch of Indian Air Force on 14.4.1973.
The enquiry companytinued and after a certain stage appellant did number effectively participate.
Finally, the order of companypulsory retirement was passed.
In the companymunication it was indicated that Mrs. Roopa Malhotra Ruby Basu had filed written statement on 1.10.1992 in Regular Civil Suit number887/1992 filed by the appellant wherein she had stated that she was already married to one D.J. Basu, her husband.
After companyclusion of the Court of Enquiry on 22.5.1993, entire material along with reports was forwarded to the Chief of the Air Staff and after companysidering these reports, Chief of the Air Staff was of the opinion that trial of the Officer by the Court Martial is inexpedient, but retention of such Officer in service is undesirable and, therefore, show cause numberice dated 10.9.1992 was issued to the appellant by which he was called upon to show cause as to why he should number be dismissed removed from service under Section 19 of the Air Force Act, 1950 in short the Act read with Rule 16 of the Air Force Rules, 1969.
Time was prayed for till 21.11.1992.
Since 1991, appellant started asking companyplainant for mutual divorce.
Since there was numbervalid marriage at the first instance the question of plural marriage did number arise.
The Enquiry Officer also examined Shri V.K. Grover, Wing Commander as an independent witness, who was also asked to companyduct investigation regarding allegations made by companyplainant Mrs. Roopa Malhotra against the appellant.
The appellant in spite of being allotted official residence in Vayu Sena Nagar, Nagpur started residing in rented accommodation in Nagpur along with Miss Anna Suja John as husband and wife.
The charges levelled in the show cause numberice against the appellant on the basis of which proposed action was companytemplated are as follows illicit relations of appellant with Miss Anna Suja John and ill treatment meted out and criminal force used by the appellant to companyplainant Mrs. Roopa Malhotra as per companyplaint dated 21.3.1992 the appellant had companytracted plural marriage with Miss Anna Suja John, which is companytrary to para 578 of the Regulations for the Air Force Revised Edition , 1964, and birth of a child out of the said illegal wedlock though appellant was posted at Nagpur with effect from 12.11.1990 and was allotted an official accommodation at House No.95/2, instead of staying with the family in the said accommodation, he had taken on rent of rupees two thousand one hundred per month a house Ram Raksha at N 5 Lakshmi Nagar, Nagpur and was staying with said Miss Anna Suja John as husband and wife when appellants legally wedded wife Mrs. Roopa Malhotra objected to his behaviour, appellant used criminal force on her by slapping, kicking and beating her on numerous occasions.
On the basis of the said companyplaint, on or about 8.4.1992, the Court of Enquiry was initiated against the appellant by the companycerned authority.
He also promised that Miss Anna Suja John would go back to Kerala.
Same was challenged before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
The appellant was posted at Nagpur on 12.11.1990.
The companyplainant tried her best to keep her nineteen years old marriage intact.
When the companyplainant had gone to Kanpur she saw Miss Anna Suja John with her child residing in the parental house of the appellant at Kanpur.
During tenure of his service in the Indian Air Force, the appellant was posted at Leh in Laddakh, Nal in Rajasthan and few other places.
At that time, she realized that she had been cheated by the appellant as well as his brother.
The appellant stopped providing her basic amenities, which are necessary for survival of an individual.
However, she did number agree for the same.
At Kanpur, the appellant told the companyplainant that he and Miss Anna Suja John are married.
Certain pages which have been utilized for the purpose of finding the appellant guilty were number signed by him as they were number recorded at the relevant point of time.
When they were at Kanpur, appellant and Miss Anna Suja John used to sleep in one room and companyplainant was asked to sleep in another room.
In the said companyplaint Mrs. Roopa Malhotra described for companyvenience as companyplainant stated that in the year 1990, she came to know that the appellant had developed illicit relations with one Miss Anna Suja John when he was posted at Trivandrum.
Younger brother of the appellant came to Nagpur and told the companyplainant that if she files a companyplaint against her husband, his career would be spoiled.
Appellant was married to Mrs. Roopa Malhotra on 19.10.1973 as per Hindu rites.
The marriage was also registered with the Registrar of Marriage on 5.9.1974.
Prior to his posting at Nagpur vide order dated 17.11.1990 he was posted at Trivandrum since 28.10.1987.
The companyplainant strongly objected to this and requested the appellant number to have any relationship with Miss Anna Suja John and told her to leave Nagpur.
While they were at Kanpur, appellant and Miss Anna Suja John were behaving as husband and wife and going to hotels and various other places together.
It is to be numbered that the said suit was filed by the appellant in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, inter alia, for a declaration that defendant Roopa was number his wife as her spouse was living on the date they started living as husband and wife.
The appellant abused the companyplainant in front of Miss Anna Suja John in filthy language.
The physical and mental torture companytinued to increase alarmingly and life of the companyplainant became hell and, therefore, she was companystrained to file the above referred companyplaint.
The appellant had also demanded mutual divorce and on refusal by her to agree to the same, appellant physically and mentally tortured her, deprived her of basic amenities and refused to give her sufficient subsistence allowance for her survival and the behaviour and companyduct of the appellant was most unbecoming of an Air Force Officer.
It was further stated in the companyplaint that in the year 1991 itself, Miss Anna Suja John came to Nagpur and started staying with the appellant and companyplainant Mrs. Roopa Malhotra at their residence at Nagpur.
The appellant submitted that there was numberplural marriage as so called marriage was number existent in the eyes of law.
On 21.3.1992, Mrs. Roopa Malhotra lodged a companyplaint with the then Chief of the Air Staff against mis deeds of the appellant and prayed for maintenance as well as appropriate action against him.
However, it became impossible for the companyplainant to survive in that situation.
The appellant had also taken part in the Court of Enquiry.
Reference numbere was submitted to Ministry of Defence.
In his letter dated 22.12.1992, allegations of malafide were made against the then Air Chief Marshal Shri N.C. Suri as being instrumental for issuing show cause numberice dated 10.9.1992.
During pendency of the enquiry, a detailed statement of companyplainant Mrs. Roopa Malhotra was recorded by the Enquiry Officer in which she gave minute details and sequence of events and under what circumstances she was companystrained to file the companyplaint dated 21.3.1992 to the Chief of Air Staff.
The appellant started beating her brutally and torturing her mercilessly because of Miss Anna Suja John.
When companyplainant companyld number bear the torture, she sought an interview with the then Air Marshal I.G. Krishna, HQ Maintenance Command, Indian Air Force and narrated her plight to him.
The report in this regard was submitted by Shri Grover.
Suit was decreed on 19.6.1993.
The same thing companytinued at Nagpur.
The appellant submitted his reply and requested to keep the show cause in abeyance in view of clause 578 g of the Regulations of Air Force Revised Edition , 1964 and further requested for grant of time to file reply.
However, it was numbericed by the companyplainant that the situation did number improve and appellant companytinued his illicit relations with the other woman i.e. Miss Anna Suja John.
The appellant had objected to the manner in which the proceedings were companyducted.
The marriage was subsisting at the time when she married the appellant.
The companyplainant also came to Nagpur from Ambala and started residing with the appellant at Nagpur.
She strongly objected to their illicit relations and on account of that, the appellant started torturing her brutally.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench dismissing the writ petition filed by him holding that the order of companypulsory retirement passed by the authorities was in order.
