1

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

O.A. No. 65 of 2014

and

M.A.No.133 of 2014

Wednesday, the 16th day of July 2014

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH

(MEMBER - JUDICIAL) AND

THE HONOURABLE LT GEN K. SURENDRA NATH (MEMBER – ADMINISTRATIVE)

Lt Col RD Sharma Unit 249, C/o 56 APO

Gurgaon, Haryana … Applicant

By Legal Practitioners: M/s. K.Ramesh & M.K.Sikdar

vs.

1. Union of India

Through Secretary Ministry of Defence

New Delhi-110 011.

2. The Chief of Army Staff Through Adjutant General (ADGDV)

Army Headquarters, New Delhi

3. The General Officer Commanding 54 Infantry Division

C/o 56 APO ..Respondents

By Major Suchithra Chellappan,

JAG Officer.

2

ORDER

(Order of the Tribunal made by

Hon’ble Justice V. Periya Karuppiah, Member-Judicial)

1. This Original application has been filed before the Principal Bench,

Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi and was taken on file in O.A.No.182

of 2014. The Hon’ble Principal Bench has directed to return the

application for being presented before this Tribunal on the question of

jurisdiction and accordingly the said Original Application was returned,

taken back by the applicant and was re-presented before this Tribunal

and was taken on file in O.A.No.65 of 2014.

2. The reliefs sought for by the applicant in this Original Application

are, to issue directions to quash and set aside the Convening Order

dated 21.12.2013 passed by Head Quarters 54 Infantry Division against

the applicant being contrary to the judgment of this Tribunal; to issue

directions to the respondents (Army Head Quarters) to cancel the

Discipline and Vigilance Ban dated 28.06.2012 based on the Disciplinary

Attachment Order issued by Army Head Quarters on 01.11.2012 which

was quashed and set aside by this Tribunal already; to pass such other

further orders against the respondents to pay adequate compensation to

the applicant for the harassment caused; and also to impose a penalty

on GOC HQ 54 Infantry Division for again convening a Court of Inquiry

on an issue which is no longer res integra being defiant in nature per se.

3

3. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the application

would be as follows:

A complaint was submitted by Subedar Major Raju Kurian of 18

MADRAS on 12.08.2011 only against the Commanding Officer Col VV

Bhaskar with no iota of complaint against the applicant. A Court of

Inquiry was convened on 29.09.2011 to investigate the veracity of the

complaint. During the proceedings, Army Rule 180 was invoked against

the complainant Sub Maj Raju Kurian and also against the Commanding

Officer Col VV Bhaskar. On 27.09.2012, HQ Southern Command

recommended a Disciplinary Attachment order against Commanding

Officer Col VV Bhaskar and also against the applicant Lt Col RD Sharma.

Despite the fact that Army Rule 180 was not invoked against the

applicant, Army HQ issued a Disciplinary Vigilance Ban against the

applicant dated 28.06.2012 and also imposed a Disciplinary Attachment

Order dated 01.11.2012. Aggrieved over the same, the applicant filed

Original Application No.52 of 2013 in which a full-fledged judgment was

passed in favour of the applicant on 12.09.2013 and the Attachment

Order issued on 01.11.2012 by the Army HQ AG (DV) Directorate stands

quashed and the entire Court of Inquiry was set aside with clear

instructions to stop the disciplinary action against the applicant. A

Demi Official letter was written by the applicant’s counsel to Army

Headquarters on 30.09.2013 with a request to revert him back to the

4

Unit where he was the Officer Commanding. The applicant was reverted

back to his Unit by a proper Movement Order along with a Detention

Certificate dated 07.12.2013. However within a period of 14 days, a

fresh Convening Order for the Court of Inquiry dated 21.12.2013 was

issued exactly on the same issues which were adjudicated and set aside

by the Hon’ble Tribunal. This would be a high-handed act of GOC 54

Infantry Division under whose directions the Convening Order was

issued. Based on the said Convening Order, the applicant was directed

to report to HQ 54 Infantry Division to take part in the Court of Inquiry.

The Convening Order is nothing but a malafide action of the army

authorities and a violation of the judgment rendered in favour of the

applicant, by the Chennai Regional Bench of AFT on 12.09.2013.

Having no other remedy, the applicant is constrained to file another

Original Application on 04.04.2014 before the Principal Bench of AFT,

New Delhi now transferred to Chennai Regional Bench of AFT. A fresh

Convening Order refers to ascertain the old alleged culpability and

lapses of the applicant herein which would be nothing but a contempt of

Court and needs to be corrected to meet the ends of equity, justice and

fair play.

4. The said Convening Order issued by 54 Infantry Division dated

21.12.2013 needs to be quashed and set aside at the very outset in

view of the matter being no longer res integra in the light of the

5

judgment of the Hon’ble AFT Regional Bench, Chennai dated

12.09.2013. Therefore, the applicant seeks for setting aside the

Convening Order and to grant reliefs as prayed for by the applicant in

the application and thus the application be allowed.

5. The brief objections raised in the reply-statement of the

respondents would be as follows:

The assailed Convening Order dated 21.12.2013 has directed

the composition of a Court of Inquiry as a fresh fact-finding body to

ascertain the culpability/lapses by Lt Col RD Sharma and other officers

in a series of events that occurred in 18 MADRAS on a complaint by Sub

Maj Raju Kurian against Col VV Bhaskar and the Report of Col VV

Bhaskar on the events on the night of 20/21 June 2011. Since the said

Convening Order is valid in the eye of law, the request of the applicant

in the application is premature and no prejudice would be caused to him

in ordering a Court of Inquiry which is a fact-finding body to ascertain

the involvement of Lt Col RD Sharma as per the allegations levelled by

Sub Maj Raju Kurian. The judgment of the AFT Regional Bench Chennai

dated 12.09.2013 made in O.A.No.52 of 2013 would not bar the

respondents from initiating a fresh Court of Inquiry as the respondents

were given liberty to take suitable action as deemed fit and only on the

basis of the liberty given in the judgment of the AFT Regional Bench

Chennai, the Convening Order has been issued. Despite no disciplinary

6

action can be initiated on the opinion of the Court of Inquiry vide

Convening Order dated 30.01.2012, it however does not restrain the

Competent Military Authority to order a fresh Court of Inquiry to

ascertain the veracity of the complaint and the Report of the

Commanding Officer. The Court of Inquiry ordered into the allegations

levelled against Col VV Bhaskar dated 12.08.2011 was set aside but the

Hon’ble AFT Regional Bench Chennai vide order dated 12.09.2013 came

to a conclusion that Army Rule 180 was not invoked in respect of the

applicant, when the applicant’s character and military reputation got

impugned on the evidence of P.W.1 who incriminated the applicant

three times in his statement. Since the applicant was the Second-in-

Command of the Battalion, a fresh Court of Inquiry was ordered vide

Convening Order dated 21.12.2013 against the applicant in order to

ascertain his involvement. The assembly of a fresh fact-finding body,

viz., Court of Inquiry was ordered to ascertain the culpability or lapses

by Lt Col RD Sharma in various events as high-lighted by Sub Maj Raju

Kurian in his complaint against Col VV Bhaskar and the Report of the

Commanding Officer. During his tenure, the applicant as 2IC of 18

MADRAS was involved in the incident during the intervening night of 20

and 21 June 2011 at Focolari Camp (Congo) while the Unit was

deployed on UN Mission. The Hon’ble AFT Chennai Regional Bench has

quashed the disciplinary action against the applicant based on the

7

opinion of the Court of Inquiry convened vide Convening Order dated

30.02.2012 on the ground of non-compliance of Army Rule 180 in

respect of the individual during the said Court of Inquiry. Thus the

disciplinary proceedings was quashed on a technical aspect only. It

does not debar the competent military authority to order any fresh

investigation into the matter and pin-point lapses, if any, by Lt Col RD

Sharma or any other individual. In the previous Court of Inquiry even

P.Ws.1, 5, 6, 7 and 23 incriminated the applicant in their evidence.

However Army Rule 180 was not invoked at that time but was invoked

on one occasion when Col VV Bhaskar was questioned by the Court on

10.04.2012 and therefore, the said Court of Inquiry was entirely

quashed against the applicant. The quashment of the said Court of

Inquiry did not bar the competent authority to investigate the

involvement of the applicant into the allegations levelled by Sub Maj

Raju Kurian and the events at Focolari Camp (Congo) on the night of

20/21 June 2011. While the complaint initiated by Sub Maj Raju Kurian

is not specific against any of the officers, accountability of various

commanders/appointment holders within the Command Structure of

the Battalion needs to be ascertained. Hence, the scope of fresh Court

of Inquiry covers lapses, if any, by the officers during discharge of their

duties and does not specifically target Lt Col RD Sharma and therefore,

no vindictiveness and biased attitude against the applicant herein could

8

be inferred. No doubt the judgment of the Hon’ble AFT Chennai

Regional Bench delivered on 12.09.2013 in O.A.No.52 of 2013 quashing

the disciplinary proceedings initiated based on the opinion of the Court

of Inquiry ordered on 30.01.2012 and terminated the Attachment Order

against the applicant. But it did not restrain the Competent Military

Authority from ordering a fresh Court of Inquiry. A Court of Inquiry

convened on 21.12.2013 was mandated to inquire into the specific

reference to the lapses, if any, committed by the applicant and six other

officers and in that sense, the present Court of Inquiry may be treated

as “res integra”. In the fresh Court of Inquiry, the applicant Lt Col RD

Sharma and other officers are merely witnesses and are not the

accused. Hence, no prejudice would be caused to the applicant. The

reliefs sought for is premature and it is preventing the Competent

Military Authority to ascertain the truth in the case. Therefore, the

respondents request that this application may be dismissed as being

devoid of merit and render justice.

6. On the above pleadings, the following points were framed for

consideration:

(1) Whether the fresh Court of Inquiry convened on

21.12.2013 against the applicant is not sustainable for the reasons

stated by the applicant?

9

(2) Whether the applicant is entitled to the relief with regard

to quashment of the Convening Order dated 21.12.2013 passed

against the applicant?

(3) Whether the Discipline and Vigilance Ban dated

28.06.2012 and the Disciplinary Attachment Order issued by Army

HQ on 01.11.2012 are sustainable in view of the judgment of this

Tribunal made in O.A.No.52 of 2013 dated 12.09.2013?

(4) Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation for the

alleged harassment made against him?

(5) To what reliefs, if any, the applicant is entitled for?

7. We heard Mr. K. Ramesh, learned counsel for the applicant and

Maj Suchithra Chellappan, learned JAG Officer assisted by Mr.

M.Dennison, Representative, ATNK & K Area for the respondents. We

have also perused the documents produced and the records of this case.

8. Point Nos.1, 2 and 3: The indisputable facts in this application

would be that the applicant Lt Col RD Sharma filed an Original

Application before this Tribunal in O.A.No.52 of 2013 for the relief of

quashing the Order of Attachment dated 01.11.2012 and tentative

Charge Sheet dated 12.01.2013 and to issue directions to the

respondents to revert him back to his Unit and to declassify the result of

No.3 Selection Board of November 2012. The said application was

10

resisted by the respondents. The submission in that application by the

applicant was allowed to the effect that the Court of Inquiry convened

on the basis of the complaint made by Sub Maj Raju Kurian and the

Report of the Commanding Officer and its proceedings against the

applicant were quashed since the applicant was not given adequate

opportunity under Army Rule 180 on several occasions except on one

occasion when Col VV Bhaskar gave a statement before the said Court

of Inquiry. The request of the applicant towards declaration of result of

No.3 Selection Board which was stated to have been held in November

2012 was not granted as there was no proof produced in that regard.

While quashing the Court of Inquiry proceedings as applicable to the

officers as well as the Attachment Orders passed against the applicant

was set aside, the respondents were also directed to stop disciplinary

action against the applicant based on the findings and opinion of the

said Court of Inquiry. However, the respondents were allowed to take

suitable action as deemed fit.

9. In the background of the above admitted facts, the present

application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the Convening

Order of Court of Inquiry again against the applicant to go into the

allegations made in the complaint of Sub Maj Raju Kurian and on the

report submitted by Col VV Bhaskar. The learned counsel for the

applicant would submit that the earlier judgment of this Tribunal made

11

in O.A.No.52 of 2013 had put a full-stop to the accusation made against

the applicant in the Court of Inquiry proceedings convened on

29.09.2011 and since it was quashed and disciplinary proceedings

initiated consequent to the proceedings against the applicant were also

ordered to be stopped and the charges framed against the applicant

were set aside, nothing survives against the applicant, the present

Convening Order has no locus to stand. He would also draw our

attention to a judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh reported in

AIR 1996 MP 233 between R.P. Shukla and Central Officer

Commanding-in-Chief, Lucknow, a judgment of High Court of

Jammu and Kashmir reported in 1987 LAB.I.C.860 between Vinayak

and Core Commander, Lt. Gen. G.O.C. H.Q. 15 Corps and yet

another judgment of Delhi High Court reported in 43 (1991) Delhi

Law Times (SN) 35 between Col A.K. Bansal and UOI and Ors. in

support of his arguments. Quoting these decisions, the learned counsel

for the applicant would insist in his argument that once the Court of

Inquiry initiated by army authorities without complying with the

mandatory requirement of Rule 180 of Army Rules, the findings of the

Court of Inquiry regarding the applicant would completely be vitiated.

The facts and circumstances discussed in that judgment would go to

show that the summary of evidence and the Summary Court Martial

proceedings initiated on the basis of such findings of Court Martial are

12

found vitiated for not invoking Rule 180 of Army Rules and was found

set aside. As far as this case is concerned, the charges framed on the

basis of the Court of Inquiry proceedings did not culminate in

commencement of the summary of evidence or Court Martial

proceedings nor any punishment has been imposed against the

applicant to vitiate those further proceedings. The previous Court of

Inquiry proceedings was quashed as vitiated and the Attachment Order

passed thereon were set aside and disciplinary proceedings were

directed to be stopped. However the respondents were given an

opportunity to take suitable actions, in accordance with law.

10. The learned JAG Officer would contend that the liberty given by

this Tribunal in the earlier judgment would entail the respondents or the

Competent Military Authority to initiate action against the applicant

since the earlier Court of Inquiry proceedings were vitiated only on

technical ground. Considering the above submissions, we find that the

respondents were at liberty to proceed in accordance with law as per

the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in the earlier judgment since the

complaint of Sub Maj Raju Kurian was not set aside by this Tribunal. It

is clear that the convening of Court of Inquiry is for the purpose of

finding facts and to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made in the

complaint. Therefore, the military authorities are entitled to proceed on

13

the complaint for convening a Court of Inquiry in order to find out the

veracity of the allegations made therein.

11. However it was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant

that the Convening Order would ex facie show bias and discrimination

against the applicant since the Terms of Reference therein would point

towards the culpability/lapses of the applicant. There are six other

officers named in the Convening Order and their role and lapses were

stated to have been investigated. The said Convening Order dated

21.12.2013 is produced as Annexure A.1. It is an admitted fact that the

Court of Inquiry earlier convened against the CO, Col VV Bhaskar on the

basis of the complaint made by Sub Maj Raju Kurian did not mention the

name of the present applicant. During the Court of Inquiry proceedings

only, various witnesses spoke of alleged role of the applicant . Since

Army Role 180 was not invoked properly at that stage and was only

invoked selectively against the applicant when Col VV Bhaskar made a

statement before the Court of Inquiry and thus this Hon’ble Tribunal set

it aside. Those facts would go to show that there was no specific

allegation made against the applicant in the complaint made by Sub Maj

Raju Kurian. The present impugned Convening Order is ordered on the

basis of the same complaint given by Sub Maj Raju Kurian. The other

subject included in this Convening Order is the report of Col VV Bhaskar

about the incident happened in Focolari Camp (Congo) on the night of

14

20/21 June 2011. It is also not disputed by the respondents that there

is no specific accusation against the applicant in that report also.

Therefore, we find that there is no prima facie culpability of the

applicant as per the allegations made in the complaint of Sub Maj Raju

Kurian and in the report of Col VV Bhaskar. For better understanding,

the term of reference is extracted hereunder from the Convening Order.

“ Terms of Reference

2. The Court of Inquiry will :-

(a) Ascertain the veracity of the contents of the complaint dated

12 Aug 2011 submitted by JC-498651X Sub Maj Raju Kurien of

18 MADRAS and culpability of/lapses by IC-55451A Lieutenant

Colonel RD Sharma.

(b) Ascertain the veracity of the contents of a report dated 20

Jun 2011 initiated by IC-46216A Col VV Bhaskar regarding the

incidents that took place during night intervening 20 and 21 Jun

2011 at Focolari Camp (Congo) while 18 MADRAS was deployed

in UN Mission (MONUC) as part of HQ 301 Inf Bde Group. (Copy

att as Appx to this convening order) and culpability of/lapses by

IC-55451A Lieutenant Colonel RD Sharma in the incident.

(c) Ascertain role/lapses of IC-55451A Lieutenant RD Sharma

and other offrs as follows, in incidents above at (a) and (b).

(i) IC-56708M Col Sudheera KP

(ii) IV-58705X Lt Col JS Aswal

(iii) IC-56374H Maj Rajpal Singh

(iv) IC-63499H Maj Kamakhya Singh

15

(v) IC-60933Y Maj Ajit Kumar

(vi) IC-66676H Cap Ritchie Ashwin S “

12. On a careful perusal of the terms of reference it would however

disclose that the Convening Order would ascertain the veracity of the

contents of the complaint dated 12.08.2011 regarding the culpability or

lapses of the applicant herein. Furthermore, the reference would continue

to the effect that the culpability or lapses of the applicant in the incident

that happened at Focolari Camp (Congo) as per the contents of the report

dated 20.6.2011 would also be investigated. When the earlier Convening

Order was not convened against the applicant and he was called as a

witness to the Court of Inquiry and the findings/opinion against him were

quashed and the proceedings were vitiated, there is no basis for ordering the

present Convening Order against him on the alleged contents of the

complaint or report based on the allegations made in the said Court of

Inquiry, which was quashed by this Tribunal. It is also curious to note the

pleadings of the respondents in the reply statement in para-16 that,

“ 16. …….Hon’ble AFT Chennai in their order dt 12 Sep 2013 had

quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated against Lt Col RD Sharma based on

opinion of Court of Inquiry convened on 30 Jan 2012, on the grounds of non

compliance of AR 180. It did not restrain Competent Military Authority to

assemble a fresh Court of Inquiry to ascertain lapses if any, were committed

16

by Lt Col RD Sharma and other offrs, based on events highlighted vide

complaint submitted by Sub Maj Raju Kurian K against Col VV Bhaskar, SM.

At this stage, Lt Col RD Sharma is merely a witness in Court of Inquiry and

not an accused. Hence, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. “

(Emphasis supplied by us)

13. The above plea of the respondents with reference to the Convening

Order would show the applicant only as a witness and not an accused.

However, the said submission is quite contra to the Convening Order in

which the applicant and others were shown as the persons against whom the

Court of Inquiry has been ordered. No doubt the applicant may be a witness

to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made generally in the complaint.

Similarly, the veracity of the contents of the report made by Col VV Bhaskar

should also be investigated. When both the complaint and the report do not

prima facie incriminate the applicant, the Court of Inquiry cannot be asked

to ascertain culpability of/lapses by the applicant in specific. This would

clearly show the biased attitude of the Convening Officer who ordered the

convening of Court of Inquiry on 21.12.2013. The argument of the learned

counsel for the applicant that once the reference made in the Convening

Order is found biased against the applicant, it would show the malafide and

a degree of vindictiveness of the said officer against the applicant cannot be

ignored. No doubt the submission made by the learned counsel for the

applicant is acceptable. In the said circumstances, we are of the considered

17

opinion that the impugned Convening Order is tainted with malafide and bias

against the applicant and is liable to be set aside.

14. The applicant has also sought for a relief that the Attachment Order

already effected against him was set aside in the judgment rendered by this

Tribunal in O.A.No.52 of 2013 dated 12.09.2013 and the Attachment Order

dated 01.11.2012 was quashed, charges framed against the applicant were

also quashed and the respondents were directed to stop disciplinary

proceedings against the applicant and therefore the Attachment Order

should not be continued in the event of setting aside the present Convening

Order. The relief as sought for by the applicant is to the effect to declare

the said Attachment Order dated 01.11.2012 and the Discipline and

Vigilance Ban dated 28.06.2012 should have been cancelled. When the

Discipline and Vigilance Ban dated 28.06.2012 (Annexure A.8) and the

Disciplinary Attachment Order dated 01.11.2012 (Annexure A.6) were

already quashed and the present Convening Order dated 21.12.2013 as

against the applicant is also ordered to be set aside, any Attachment Order

passed against the applicant reverting him back leading to Discipline and

Vigilance Ban, if any, ordered shall also be set aside. Accordingly, Point

Nos.1 to 3 are decided in favour of the applicant.

15. Point No.4: The applicant has asked for compensation from the

respondents for the alleged harassment caused and also to impose penalty

on GOC 54 Infantry Division for the convening of Court of Inquiry once again

18

in the matter which was decided already. The claim was based on the sole

ground that the respondents cannot open the Pandora Box once again as if

it was already decided by this Tribunal in its earlier judgment in respect of

the subject involved therein. We have already answered this point in the

earlier paragraph that the respondents are entitled to proceed with the

investigation on the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the

report in order to find out the truth. There is no doubt that the Convening

Order was tainted with malafide, bias and vindictiveness against the

applicant. But the applicant has asked for compensation on the foot that the

convening authorities have no legal sanctity to convene a Court of Inquiry

which was put an end by this Tribunal in its earlier judgment. We also find

that the respondents are always entitled to investigate into the veracity of

the statements made in the complaint and the report, by constituting a

Court of Inquiry in a proper and lawful manner. Our finding is also to the

effect that the Court of Inquiry convened on 21.12.2013 against the

applicant was convened when there was no prima facie allegations made

against the applicant in the complaint made by Sub Maj Raju Kurian and as

well in the report submitted by Col VV Bhaskar regarding the incident

happened at Focolari Camp (Congo). The claim of compensation has thus

no foot to stand. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any compensation

to the applicant as sought for by him. Accordingly, this point is decided

against this applicant.

19

16. Point No.5: From the discussions held on the above points, the

applicant is entitled to the reliefs regarding quashment of the convening

order dated 21.12.2013 against the applicant. The Discipline and Vigilance

Ban dated 28.06.2012 and the Disciplinary Attachment Order dated

01.11.2012 issued against the applicant were already quashed and set aside

in the earlier judgment of this Tribunal and the Attachment Order if any

ordered against the applicant in pursuance of the Convening Order dated

21.12.2013 is also not sustainable. However, the applicant was not found

entitled to the compensation as asked for by him.

17. In the background of granting these reliefs, we make it clear that the

respondents are always at liberty to find out the truth and inquiring into the

veracity of the allegations made in the complaint made by Sub Maj Raju

Kurian and the report submitted by Col VV Bhaskar regarding the incident at

Focolari Camp (Congo) by initiating a fresh Convening Order generally and

the applicant cannot be named in such a Convening Order and shall be

proceeded in accordance with law. Since we find malafide and biased

attitude against the applicant on the part of GOC 54 Infantry Division, any

Court of Inquiry to be convened on the basis of the same complaint and the

report shall be done, by a Formation Commander, outside the jurisdiction of

54 Infantry Division. No member/Presiding Officer shall be nominated who

is on the present rolls of 54 Infantry Division for the said Inquiry. However,

the Court of Inquiry, if convened is at liberty to call forth any witness to

20

depose while investigating the said complaint and Report and give its

findings and opinions, thereon, in accordance with law.

18. In fine, the application filed by the applicant is partly allowed with the

above directions and observations. No order as to costs.

19. M.A.No.133 of 2014 : In view of the order passed in O.A.No.65 of

2014 setting aside the impugned Convening Order dated 21.12.2013, the

interim stay already granted is made absolute in respect of the applicant

only. Consequently, application to vacate stay is dismissed.

Sd/ Sd/

LT GEN K. SURENDRA NATH JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH

MEMBER (ADMINISTRATIVE) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

16.07.2014

(True copy)(True copy)(True copy)(True copy)

Member(J) – Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

Member (A) – Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

vs

21

To

1.The Secretary

Ministry of Defence New Delhi

2. The Chief of Army Staff

Through Adjutant General (ADGDV) Army Headquarters, New Delhi

3. The General Officer Commanding

54 Infantry Division C/o 56 APO

4. M/s. K.Ramesh and M.K.Sikdar Counsel for applicant.

5. Major Suchithra Chellappan,

JAG Officer, For Respondents.

6. OIC/Legal Cell,

ATNK & K Area, Chennai-600009.

7. Library, AFT/RBC, Chennai.

22

Hon’ble Justice V.Periya Karuppiah

(Member-Judicial) and

Hon’ble Lt Gen K.Surendra Nath (Member -Administrative)

O.A.No 65 of 2014

and M.A.No.133 of 2014

Dt: 16.07.2014