Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, Lt. Col Yoiidhvir Singh, has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 27.07.2006, Annexure P -16, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be attached for further disciplinary proceedings i.e., for giving false evidence on oath.
(2.) THE brief facts which led to the issuance of communication dated 27.07.2006, Annexure P -16, are that a Court of Inquiry was convened on 19.12.2005 to investigate the circumstances under which one Col. K.D. Singh, CO 1 HORSE, sustained injuries of severe nature on 5.12.2005. By another order dated 8.1.2006, another Court of Inquiry was convened for the same purpose. Still further, vide order dated 7.4.2006, another Court of Inquiry was convened again for the same purpose. The petitioner is a witness who appeared in such Court of Inquiry which was convened to investigate the circumstances of serious injuries suffered by Col. K.D. Singh. It is the stand of the respondents that first Court of Inquiry was cancelled due to technical reason and second Court of Inquiry remained inconclusive. On conclusion of the third Court of Inquiry, summary of evidence was conducted and after examining summary of evidence, it was decided to convene General Court Martial against the petitioner for giving false evidence on oath. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the initiation of Court of Inquiry proceedings and subsequent action thereto against the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Court of Inquiry contravenes the statutory provisions in respect of the petitioner and, thus, on the basis of conclusions of such inquiry, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against and, thus, entire process of mutation of proceedings against the petitioner is illegal, without jurisdiction and, thus, not sustainable.
(3.) THREE -fold arguments have been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his case. Firstly, Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Rules"), provides that in case any inquiry affects the character or military reputation of a person subject to the Army Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act'.), full opportunity is required to be afforded to such persons of being present throughout the inquiry and of making any statement and to cross -examine the witnesses. It is contended that since the character and military reputation of the petitioner is being affected during the course of inquiry but the petitioner has not been given any opportunity so as to examine the witnesses in his presence and to cross -examine the same, therefore, Rule 180 of the Rules stands breached.;