- (1.) SEEKING quashing of show cause notice dated 08.08.2006 of the Chief of Staff, 16 Corps, annulment of order dated 04.09.2006 of Corps Commander 16 Corps and a direction for promotion to the rank of A/Col., Lt. Col. Veerender Mohan petitioner, functioning as Deputy Judge Advocate General 16 Corps, has filed this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of J&K.
(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner in his petition, in nut shell, is that a false complaint made by a lady officer (Capt. Ms. X {it is not considered proper to disclose the name of the lady officer additionally because she has not been arrayed as a party respondent to this writ petition}), resulting in the constitution and holding of a Court of Inquiry, had found the petitioner responsible for "various misdemeanours" and ultimately culminating in communication of a 'Severe Displeasure (Recordable) to the petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner says that right from the day of arrival on posting of Capt. Ms. X to his office she started misrepresenting that she was over due for promotion to the substantive rank of Captain and petitioner may process her case as such. On being informed by the petitioner that he had no authority to promote her because the policy guidelines did not permit her promotion Ms. X is stated to have pressurised him through Brigadier A. K. Malik, Brigadier Administration HQ 16 Corps. The petitioner had informed respondent no.4 Major General B. S. Jaswal about few false statements made by the lady officer against him to the General Officer Commanding, but rather than proceeding against Ms. X, he was threatened of dire consequences and deprivation of promotion. The petitioner says that a complaint was later managed at the instructions of Captain Ms. X against him, which resulted in issuance of a show cause notice and later communication of Severe Displeasure (Recordable) on the basis of the findings of the Court of Inquiry. The petitioner questions the constitution of Court of Inquiry and its proceedings, show cause notice, and order dated 4th of September, 2006, saying that the principles of natural justice had been violated by the respondents in not supplying him the findings of the Court of Inquiry before issuing the show cause notice, which did not contain 'definite and specific lapses, in unambiguous terms, and that the expression 'various misdemeanours used by the 4th respondent in the show cause notice was vague and ambiguous. He says that he had been cleared for promotion by the Selection Board and could not be deprived of this promotion on the basis of Severe Displeasure, which, the petitioner says, was not a known punishment in the Army and would not operate as bar for his promotion. He says that the witnesses, who had been produced during the Court of Inquiry, had not even remotely involved him in any act of omission and commission, misconduct or misdemeanour and the conclusion drawn by the respondents, attributing various misdemeanours on the basis of Court of Inquiry was perverse and unjust.;