- (1.) The appellant was confirmed as a Captain in the Indian Army in 1970. It appears that thereafter, he faced a court of enquiry for alleged misconduct which revealed that between April 1972 and March 1974, he had committed irregularities on as many as five occasions but was let off hoping that he will correct himself. Thereafter on 13/8/1977 he addressed a letter to the then Law minister wherein he made allegations against his superiors. Regulation 557 of the Regulations framed under the Army Act, 1950 provides as under : "557.Correspondence with High Officials.- In no circumstances will officers, JCOs, WOs, OR or NCs (E) address the President, the Head of a state, a Minister, the Chief of the Army Staff, or any Army Commander, or any Principal Staff Officer at Army Headquarters or Head of the Services, or any other superior formation commander on any official or service matter except through the authorised channels. "the authorised channel for official correspondence has been indicated in regulation 553. The appellant had, therefore, violated the requirement of regulation 557 when he addressed a letter directly to the Minister of Law, government of India on 13-8-1977. For this violation action was proposed to be taken against him under Rule 14 of the Army Rules, 1954. That Rule insofar as relevant for our purpose reads as under : "14.(1 When it is proposed to terminate the service of an officer under section 19 on account of misconduct, he shall be given an opportunity to show cause in the manner specified in sub-rule (2 against such action : 716 provided that this sub-rule shall not apply- (a) where the service is terminated on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction by a criminal court; or (b) where the central government is satisfied that for reasons, to be recorded in writing, it is not expedient or reasonably practicable to give to the officer an opportunity of showing cause. (2 When after considering the reports on an officer's misconduct, the central government or the Chief of the Army Staff is satisfied that the trial of the officer by a court-martial is inexpedient or impracticable, but is of the opinion, that the further retention of the said officer in the service is undesirable, the Chief of the Army Staff shall so inform the officer together with all reports adverse to him and he shall be called upon to submit, in writing, his explanation and defence : provided that the Chief of the Army Staff may withhold from disclosure any such report or portion thereof if, in his opinion, its disclosure is not in the interest of the security of the State. "
(2.) On a plain reading of Rule 14 it is obvious that ordinarily when the officer's services are proposed to be terminated he must be given an opportunity to show cause in the manner specified by sub-rule (2. This sub-rule envisages trial of the officer by court-martial unless it is found to be inexpedient or impracticable. However, if the government or the Chief of Army Staff is of the opinion that further retention of the officer in service is undesirable, the officer must be so informed and his explanation be called. Further, if even the giving of show-cause notice is to be waived on the central government being satisfied, that is inexpedient or impracticable, it is imperative to record the reasons in writing.
(3.) Since it was thought that it is not desirable to retain the officer in service, he was served with a show-cause notice dated 18/2/1978. By the said show- cause notice it was alleged that he had been guilty of violation of Regulation 557 and had thereby committed grave irregularity and misconduct unbecoming of an Army Officer. It was further stated in the show-cause notice that this was not the first occasion when he had indulged in such grave irregularity, similar five lapses on his part in the past were set out in the show-cause notice and it was stated that action against him for the said irregularities/misconduct had not been processed hoping that he would correct himself keeping in mind the punishments awarded to him on the culmination of disciplinary trial on other counts. The purpose of indicating the same was to impress upon him the fact that despite leniency shown in the past he had not corrected himself and had instead indulged in similar conduct by writing the letter dated 13/8/1977. He was, therefore, called upon to show cause in writing within 25 days from the receipt of the notice. Pursuant to the same the appellant sent his explanation which did not impress the authorities. We find from the note put up in this behalf that the authorities came to the conclusion that having regard to the earlier conduct which was the subject-matter of the disciplinary action the officer's sense of discipline was far from satisfactory. It was stated that while individually the earlier cases may not be viewed seriously, cumulatively, they unmistakably throw light into the basic trait of the officer and lead to the inevitable conclusion that his retention in service is undesirable. It was on theseallegations that he was visited with a notice to show cause why his services should not be terminated under Rule 14 extracted hereinbefore.;