Civil Appeal No 663 of 1978
From the Judgment and Order dt
9377 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc
Writ No 8477
Dr Anand Prakash VB Saharaya and Miss A Subhashini for P the Appellants H section Parihar for the Respondent
The judgment of the Court was delivered by MADONJ
This Appeal by Special Leave granted by this Court is preferred against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the Respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and quashing a show cause notice dated November 121976 issued by the First Appellant the Chief of the Army Staff under Rule 14 of the Army Rules
418 The facts which have given rise to this Appeal lie in a narrow compass
The Respondent is a permanent commissioned officer of the Indian Army holding the substantive rank of Captain and the acting rank of Major
In November 1975 he was posted in the Army School of Mechanical Transport Faizabad
As a result of certain incidents which are alleged to have taken place on November 6 and 7 1975 the Respondent was tried by a general court martial on four charges
It is unnecessary to reproduce the charges made against the Respondent
The charge sheet was dated January 20 1976 and was issued by the Commandant Ordinance Depot Fort Allahabad
On January 24 1976 the Respondent was ordered to be tried by a general court martial
The Respondent pleaded not guilty and his trial took place at Lucknow before a general court martial consisting of one Brigadier two Majors and two Captains Both the prosecution and the Respondent led evidence
On March 13 1976 the court martial announced its finding subject to confirmation the finding being Not guilty of all the charges
The General Officer Commanding Madhya Pradesh Bihar and Orissa Area the Third Appellant who was the confirming authority did not confirm the verdict and by his order dated April 3 1976 sent back the finding for revision
The same general court martial therefore re assembled on April 14 1976 and after hearing both sides and taking into consideration the observations made by the Third Appellant in his said order dated April 3 1976 adhered to its original view and once again announced the finding that the Respondent was  Not guilty of all the charges
The said finding was also expressly announced as being subject to confirmation
The Third Appellant reserved confirmation of the finding on revision by a superior authority namely the General Officer Commanding in Chief Central Command Lucknow the Second Appellant and forwarded the papers to him
By his order dated May 25 1976 the Second Appellant did not confirm the finding on revision of the general court martial
The charges made against The Respondent the finding and the non confirmation thereof were promulgated as required by Rule 71 of the Army Rules
Thereafter the Chief of the Army Staff under Rule 14 of the Army Rules issued the impugned show cause notice dated November 12 1976
It was stated in the said notice that the Chief of the Army Staff had carefully considered the facts of the case as also the Respondent s defence at the trial and being satisfied that a fresh trial by a court martial for the said offences was inexpedient he 419 was of the opinion that the Respondent s misconduct as disclosed in the proceedings rendered his further retention in the service undesirable
The Respondent was called upon by the said notice to submit his explanation and defence if any within twenty five days of the receipt of the said notice
Along with the said notice copies of abstracts of evidence and the court martial proceedings were forwarded to the Respondent
The Respondent thereupon filed in the High Court of Allahabad a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being Civil Miscellaneous Writ No 84 of 1976 which as aforesaid was allowed
It was the contention of the Respondent in his writ petition that under the Act No 46 of 1950 and the Army rules there was an initial option either to have the concerned officer tried by a court martial or to take action against him under Rule 14 and that in his case the option having been exercised to try him by a court martial the Chief of the Army Staff was not competent to have recourse to Rule 14 after the Respondent was acquitted both at the time of the original trial and on revision
This contention found favour with the High Court
The High Court held that as the Respondent had in fact been tried by a court martial which both at the time of the original trial and on revision had returned a verdict of not guilty it could not be said that it was inexpedient to try the Respondent by a court martial and therefore the impugned notice under Rule 14 was issued without any jurisdiction
At the hearing of the said writ petition a preliminary objection was raised by the Appellants that the said writ petition was not maintainable as being premature
The High Court held that as the impugned notice was issued without jurisdiction it would be exposing the Respondent to jeopardy to require him to submit his reply to the said notice and to wait until his services were terminated
The same contentions as were raised before the High Court were taken before us at the hearing of this Appeal
We will first deal with the Appellants  preliminary objection that the Respondent s writ petition was not maintainable as being premature
It was the Respondent s case that the Chief of the Army Staff had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notice after he had been again found not guilty by the court martial on revision
The said notice expressly stated that the Chief of the Army Staff was of the opinion that the Respondent s misconduct as disclosed in the proceedings rendered his further retention in service undesir 420 able and asked him to submit his explanation and defence if any to the charges made against him
If the Respondent s contention with respect to the jurisdiction of the Chief of the Army Staff to issue the said notice were correct the Respondent was certainly exposed to the jeopardy of having his explanation and defence rejected and he being removed or dismissed from services
Were the said notice issued without jurisdiction the Respondent would have then suffered a grave prejudicial injury by an act which was without jurisdiction
Where the threat of a prejudicial action is wholly without jurisdiction a person cannot be asked to wait for the injury to be caused to him before seeking the Court s protection
If on the other hand the Chief of the Army Staff had the power in law to issue the said notice it would not be open to the Respondent to approach the court under Article 226 of the Constitution at the stage of notice only and in such an event his writ petition could be said to be premature
This was however not a contention which could have been decided at the threshold until the court had come to a finding with respect to the jurisdiction of the Chief of the Army Staff to issue the impugned notice
Having held that the impugned notice was issued without any jurisdiction the High Court was right in further holding that the Respondent s writ petition was not premature and was maintainable
Before considering the rival contentions with respect to the validity of the impugned notice we may mention that a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court has held in the case of Capt
Kashmir Singh Shergill vs The Union of India and another 1 that the Chief of the Army Staff was competent to issue a show cause notice under Rule 14 even though the court martial had affirmed its verdict on revision
The answer to the question whether the Chief of the Army Staff was competent to issue the impugned notice depends upon the relevant provisions of the and the Army Rules to which we now turn
Chapter IV of the  which consists of Section 18 to 24 deals with the conditions of service of persons appointed under 1 Civil Writ No 553 of 1974 decided on November 6 1974 by Prakash Narain J 421 the Act
Section 18 provides that every person subject to the Army 
Act shall hold office during the pleasure of the President
Section 19 provides that subject to the provisions of the and the rules and regulations made thereunder the Central Government may dismiss or remove from the service any person subject to the 
Section 22 provides that any person subject to the may be retired released or discharged from the service by such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under the Act
Section 191 confers  upon the Central Government the power to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the 
Rule 14 of the Army Rules 1954 provides as follows 14
Termination of service by the Central Government on account of misconduct 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 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 of an officer s misconduct the Central Government or the Chief of the Army Staff is satisfied that the trial of the officer by 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 422 disclosure any such report or portion thereof in his opinion its disclosure is not in the interest of the security of the State
In the event of the explanation of the officer being considered unsatisfactory by the Chief the Army Staff or when so directed by the Central Government the case shall be submitted to the Central Government with the officer s defence and the recommendation of the Chief of the Army Staffs to the termination of the officer s service in the manner specified in sub rule 4
3 Where upon the conviction of an officer by a criminal court the Central Government or the Chief of the Army staff considers that the conduct of the officer which has led to his conviction renders his further retention in service undesirable a certified copy of the judgment of the criminal court convicting him shall be submitted to the Central Government with the recommendation of the Chief of the Army Staff as to the termination of the officer s n service in the manner specified in sub rule 4
4 When submitting a case to the Central Government under the provisions of sub rule 2 or sub rule 3 the Chief of the Army Staff shall make his recommendation whether the officer s service should be terminated and if so whether the officer should be a dismissed from the service or b removed from the service or c called upon to retire or d called upon to resign
5 The Central Government after considering the reports and the officer s defence if any or the judgment of the criminal court as the case may be and the recommendation of the Chief of the Army Staff may dismiss or remove the officer with or with out pension or call upon him to retire or resign and on his refusing to do so the officer may be compulsorily retired or removed from the service on pension or gratuity if any admissible to him
 423 We are not concerned in this Appeal with a case where an officer has been convicted by a criminal court or with a case where the Central Government is satisfied that it is not expedient or reasonably practicable to give to the officer an opportunity of showing cause
A show cause notice was in fact issued to the Respondent by the Chief of the Army Staff
Under sub rule 2 of Rule 14 the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Central B Government or the Chief of the Army Staff to issue a show cause notice is the satisfaction of the Central Government or the Chief of the Army Staff after considering the reports of an officer s misconduct that the trial OF the officer by a court martial is inexpedient or impracticable and the opinion formed that the further retention of the officer in the service is undesirable
The contention before us was that in the circumstances of this case it cannot be said that the trial of the Respondent by a court martial was inexpedient or impracticable as in fact the Respondent had been tried by a court martial
It was also submitted that on a true construction of Rule 14 the Central Government or the Chief of the Army Staff has an initial option to have the officer tried by a court martial or to take action against him under Rule 14 and if it were decided that he should be tried by a court martial then action under Rule 14 was not permissible in case of his acquittal by the court martial
To test the correctness of these submissions we must examine the provisions of the relating to court martial
Section 108 provides for four kinds of courts martial namely
1 general courts martial 2 district courts martial 3 summary general courts martial and 4 summary courts martial
As the Respondent was tried by a general court martial we are not concerned here with any other type of courts martial Under section 109 a general court martial may be convened by the Central Government or the Chief of the Army Staff or by any officer empowered in that behalf by warrant of the Chief of the Army Staff
Section 113 provides that a general court martial shall consist of 424 not less than five officers each of whom has held a commission for not less than three whole years and of whom not less than four are of a rank not below that of captain
Section 117 provides for cases in which a court martial can be dissolved
These cases are 1 Where after the commencement of a trial the court martial is reduced below the minimum number of officers required by the 
In such a case the dissolution of the court martial is mandatory
2 If on account of the illness of the judge advocate or of the accused before the finding it is impossible to continue the trial
In this case also the dissolution of the court martial is mandatory
3 If it appears to the officer who convened a court martial that military exigencies or the necessities of discipline render it impossible or inexpedient to continue the court martial
In this case the dissolution of the court martial is discretionary
Sub section 4 of section 117 expressly provides that where a court martial is dissolved the accused may be tried again
Section 118  confers upon a general court martial the power to try any person subject to the for any offence punishable thereunder and to pass any sentence authorized thereby
Section 121 provides as follows 121
Prohibition of second trial
When any person subject to this Act has been acquitted or convicted of an offence by a court martial or by a criminal court or has been dealt with under any of the sections 80 83 84 and 85 he shall not be liable to be tried again for the same offence by a court martial or dealt with under the said sections
 The Respondent was neither tried by a criminal court nor dealt with under any of the sections 80 83 84 and 85 most of which do not apply to an officer of his rank He was however tried by a general court martial which found him not guilty of any of the charges made against him
Under section 125 where a criminal 425 court and a court martial both have jurisdiction in respect of an offence it is in the discretion of the officer commanding the army army crops division or independent brigade in which the accused person is serving or such other officer as may be prescribed by the Army Rules to decide before which court the proceedings shall be instituted
Under section 127 a person convicted or acquitted by a court martial may with the previous sanction of the Central Government be tried again by a criminal court for the same offence or on the same facts
There is however no provision for the trial by a court martial for the same offence or on the same facts where a person has been convicted or acquitted by a criminal court
Sections 153 154 and 1601 provide as follows 153
Finding and sentence not valid unless confirmed
No finding or sentence of a general district or summary general court martial shall be valid except so far as it may be confirmed as provided by this Act
Power to confirm finding and sentence of general court martial
The findings and sentences of general courts martial may be confirmed by the Central Government or by any officer empowered in this behalf by warrant of the Central Government
Revision of finding or sentence 1 Any finding or sentence of a court martial which requires confirmation may be once revised by order of the confirming authority and on such revision the court if so directed by the Confirming authority may take additional evidence
In this connection it will also be relevant to set out the provisions of Rules 68 69 70 and 11 of the Army Rules
These Rules provide as follows 68
Revision
1 Where the finding is sent back for revision under section 160 the Court shall reassemble in open court 426 the revision order shall be read and if the court is directed to take fresh evidence such evidence shall also be taken in open court
The court shall then deliberate on its finding in closed court
2 Where the finding is sent back for revision and the court does not adhere to its former finding it shall revoke the finding and sentence and record the new finding and if such new finding involves a sentence pass sentence afresh
3 Where the sentence alone is sent back for revision the court shall not revise the finding
4 After the revision the presiding officer shall date and y sign the decision of the court and the proceedings upon being signed by the judge advocate if any shall at once be transmitted for confirmation
Review of court martial proceedings
The proceedings of a general court martial shall be submitted by the judge advocate at the trial for review to the deputy or assistant judge advocate general of the command who shall then forward it to the confirming officer
The proceedings of a district court martial shall be sent by the presiding officer or the judge advocate direct to the confirming officer who must in all cases
where the sentence is dismissal or above seek advice of the deputy or assistant judge advocate general of the command before confirmation 70
Confirmation Upon receiving the proceedings of a general or district court martial the confirming authority may confirm or refuse confirmation or reserve confirmation for superior authority and the confirmation non confirmation or reservation shall be entered in and form part of the proceedings
 71
Promulgation The charge finding and sentence and any recommendation to mercy shall together with the confirmation or non confirmation of the proceedings be 427 promulgated in such manner as the confirming authority may direct and if no direction is given according to the custom of the service
Until promulgation has been effected confirmation is not complete and the finding and sentence shall not be held to have been confirmed until they have been promulgated
 It is pertinent to note that under Section 160 the confirming authority has the power to direct a revision of the finding of a court martial only once
There is no power in the confirming authority if it does not agree with the finding on revision to direct a second revision of such finding
In the absence of any such confirmation whether of the original finding or of the finding on revision by reason of the provisions of section l 53 the finding is not valid
Therefore in the case of the Respondent the finding of the general court martial on revision not having been confirmed was not valid
Could he therefore be tried again by another court martial on the same charges  Under Section 121 a person subject to the  who has been acquitted or convicted of an offence by a court martial or by a criminal Court is not liable to be tried again for the same offence by a court martial
It can well be argued that by reason of the provisions of section 153 under which no finding or sentence of a general district or summary general court martial is valid except in so far as it is confirmed as provided by the a person cannot be said to have been acquitted or convicted by a court martial until the finding of guilty or not guilty in his case has been confirmed by the confirming authority
There is however no express provision in the which empowers the holding of a fresh court martial when the finding of a court martial on revision is not confirmed
The decisions of three High Courts may be referred to in this connection
The first decision is that of Allahabad High Court in GB Singh vs Union of India and Others
1 That was a case under the Act No 45 of 1950
In that case the officer was found guilty by a general court martial and sentenced 
to be dismissed from service
The finding and sentence was referred to the confirming authority
The confirming authority passed an order reserving the same for confirmation by superior authority and forwarded the proceedings to the Chief Of the Air Staff
The 1 428 Chief of the Air staff passed an order not confirming the finding or sentence awarded by the court martial
The finding and sentence which were not confirmed by the Chief of Air Staff were promulgated after the lapse of about ten months
A fresh general court martial was convened to retry the office
On enquiry the officer was informed that the findings and sentence of the general court martial had not been confirmed as it was found that the proceedings were not in order and therefore there was no valid order convicting or acquitting the officer
After considering the relevant provisions of the and the Air Force Rules 1969 which are in pari materia with the corresponding provisions of the and the Army Rules a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court held that the effect of non confirmation was that though the finding and sentence passed by the court martial existed they could not be put into effect unless they had been confirmed under the provisions of the  and that in such a case section 120 of the which is in pari materia with section 121 of the  barred a second trial by a court martial
In Major Manohar Lal vs The Union of India and Anr
1 the petitioner was tried by a general court martial which found him not guilty
The General Officer Commanding in Chief held the proceedings to be null and void on the ground that one of the members of the court martial was of the rank of Captain and was thus lower in the rank to the petitioner and no certificate had been recorded by the officer convening the court martial as required by Rule 402 of the Army Rules that an officer of the rank of the petitioner was not available and he therefore ordered a retrial
A learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that under the and the Army Rules a Captain was eligible to be made a member of a general court martial and the mere fact that the convening officer did not append the certificate that an officer of the rank of the petitioner was not available did not make the constitution of the general court martial invalid or the finding given by it to be without jurisdiction or the proceedings of the trial before it to be null and void
He further held that as the petitioner had no say in the constitution of the general court martial and had suffered the trial before it the proceedings could not have been declared null and void on a highly technical ground
The learned Single Judge therefore
came to the conclusion that the second trial of the petitioner 1 19711 SLR 717
429 was without jurisdiction and the sentence imposed upon him in consequence of that trial was wholly illegal
In JC 13018 Subedar Surat Singh vs The Chief Engineer Projects Beacon
Co 56 APO 1A Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that though every finding of a general court martial whether of acquittal or of guilt cannot be recorded as valid unless it is confirmed by the competent authority the Legislature could not have reasonably intended that an officer convening a general court martial can go on dissolving such court martials and reconstituting them ad infinitum until he obtained a verdict or a finding of his own liking
The Division Bench further held that such a position would not only be against public policy and the ancient maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa no man ought to be twice vexed for one and the same cause but would also reduce the provisions of the to a mockery and give an appearance of mala fides
According to the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in such a case the proper course for the confirming authority would be to refer the case to its superior authority for confirmation
This being the position what then is the course open to the Central Government or the Chief of the Army Staff when the finding of a court martial even on revision is perverse or against the weight of evidence on record The High Court in its judgment under appeal has also held that in such a case a fresh trial by another court martial is not permissible
The crucial question therefore is whether the Central Government or the Chief of the Army Staff can have resort to Rule 14 of the Army Rules
Though it is open to the Central Government of the Chief of the Army Staff to have recourse to that Rule in the first instance without directing trial by a court martial of the concerned officer there is no provision in the or in Rule l 4 or any of the other rules of the Army Rules which prohibits the Central Government or the Chief of the Army Staff from resorting in such a case to Rule 14
Can it however be said that in such a case a trial by a court martial is inexpedient or impracticable The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Third Edition defines the word inexpedient as meaning not expedient disadvantageous in the circumstances unadvisable impolitic
The same dictionary defines expedient  inter alia as meaning advantageous fit proper or suitable to the circumstances o the case
Webster s Third New International Dictionary also 1 AIR 1970 J  K 179
430 defines the term expedient inter alia as meaning characterized by suitability practicality and efficiency in achieving a particular end fit proper or advantageous under the circumstances
In the present case the Chief of the Army Staff
had on the one hand the finding of a general court martial which had not been confirmed and the Chief of the Army Staff was of the opinion that the further retention of the Respondent in the service was undesirable and on the other hand there were the above three High Court decisions and the point was not concluded by a definitive pronouncement of this Court
In such circumstances to order a fresh trial by a court martial could certainly be said to be both inexpedient and impracticable and the only expedient and practicable course therefore open to the Chief of the Army Staff would be to take action against the Respondent under Rule 14 which he did
The action of the Chief of the Army Staff in issuing the impugned notice was therefore neither without jurisdiction nor unwarraned in law
In the result this Appeal must succeed and is accordingly allowed and the judgment of the Division Beach of the Allahabad High Court under Appeal is reversed and the order passed by it is set aside
The writ petition filed by the Respondent in the Allahabad High Court namely Civil Miscellaneous Writ No 84 of 1977 is hereby dismissed
Before parting with this Appeal we would like to observe that the alleged incidents in respect of which the Respondent was tried before the general court martial took place nearly ten years ago
We therefore feel that the Chief of the Army Staff should take into account the conduct and behaviour of the Respondent during the intervening period and if they have been in conformity with good order and military discipline and the high traditions of the Indian Army he may consider the desirability of proceeding further in the matter
In the circumstances of the Case there Will be no order as to costs throughout


Summary:
The respondent a permanent commissioned officer of the Indian Army holding the substantive rank of captain and the acting rank of major as a result of certain incidents which are alleged to have taken place on November 5 and 6 1975 was ordered to be tried by a general court martial
On March 13 1976 the court martial announced its finding subject to confirmation the finding being Not guilty of all the charges
 The General Officer Commanding Madhya Pradesh Bihar and Orissa Area the third appellant who was the confirming authority did not confirm the verdict and by his order dated April 3 1976 sent back the finding for revision
The same general court martial therefore reassembled on April 14 1976 and after hearing both sides and taking into consideration the observations made by the third appellant in his said order dated April 3 1976 adhered to its original view and once again announced the finding subject to confirmation that the respondent was Not guilty of all the charges
The third appellant reserved confirmation of the finding on revision by a superior authority namely the General Officer Commanding in Chief Central Command Lucknow the second appellant and forwarded the papers to him
By his order dated May 25 1976 the second appellant did not confirm the finding on revision of the general court martial
The charges made against the respondent the finding and the nonconfirmation thereof were promulgated as required by Rule 71 of the Army Rules
Thereafter the Chief of the Army Staff under Rule 14 of the Army Rules 1954 issued the impugned show cause notice dated November 12 1976 stating that the Chief of the Army Staff had carefully considered the facts of the case as also the respondent s defence at the trial and being satisfied that a 416 fresh trial by a court martial for the said offences was inexpedient he was of the opinion that the respondent s misconduct as disclosed in the proceedings rendered his further retention in the service undesirable
and called upon the respondent to submit his explanation and defence if any within twenty five days of the receipt of the said notice
Along with the said notice copies of abstracts of evidence and the court martial proceedings were forwarded to the respondent
The respondent thereupon filed in the High Court of Allahabad a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being Civil Miscellaneous Writ No 84 of 1976 which was allowed by a Division Bench of the said High Court
Hence the appeal by special leave Allowing the appeal the Court  HELD 1
Where the threat of a prejudicial action is wholly without jurisdiction a person cannot be asked to wait for the injury to be caused to him before seeking the Court s protection
If on the other hand the Chief of the Army Staff had the power in law to issue the said notice it would not be open to the respondent to approach the court under Article 226 of the Constitution at the stage of notice only and in such an event his writ petition could be said to be premature
This was however not a contention which could have been decided at the threshold until the court had come to a finding with respect to the jurisdiction of the Chief of the Army Staff to issue the impugned notice
Having held that the impugned notice was issued without any jurisdiction the High Court was right in further holding that the respondent s writ petition was not premature and was maintainable
420C E 2
Whether the Chief of the Army Staff was competent to issue the impugned notice of show cause depends upon the relevant provisions of the and the Army Rules 1954
Under Section 153 of the  no finding or sentence of a general district or summary general court martial shall be valid except so far as it may be confirmed as provided by the 
Under Section 60 of the  the confirming authority has the power to direct a revision of the finding of a court martial only once
There is no power in the confirming authority if it does not agree with the finding on revision to direct a second revision of such finding
In the absence of any such confirmation whether of the original finding or of the finding on revision by reason of the provisions of Section 153 the finding is not valid
Therefore in the case of the respondent the finding of the general court martial on revision not having been confirmed was not valid
Equally there is however no express provision in the which empowers the holding of a fresh court martial when the finding of a court martial on revision is not confirmed
427C F 3
Though it is open to the Central Government or the Chief of the Army Staff to have recourse to Rule 14 of the first instance without directing trial by a court martial of the concerned officer there is no provision in the or in Rule 14 or any of the other Rules of the Army Rules which 417 prohibits the Central Government or the Chief of the Army Staff from resorting in such a case to Rule 14
429F G In the present case the Chief of the Army Staff had on the one hand the finding of a general court martial which had not been confirmed and the Chief of the Army Staff was of the opinion that the further retention of the respondent in the service was undesirable and on the other hand there were three difference conflicting decisions of different High Courts on this point which point was not concluded by a definitive pronouncement of this Court
In such circumstances to order a fresh trial by a court martial could certainly be said to be both inexpedient and impracticable and the only expedient and practicable course therefore open to the Chief of the Army Staff would be to take action against the respondent under Rule 14 which he did
The action of the Chief of the Army Staff in issuing the impugned notice was therefore neither without jurisdiction nor unwarranted in law
430B D Capt
Kashmir Singh Shergill vs The Union of India  Another Civil Writ No 553 of 1974 decided on November 6 1974 by Prakash Narain J approved
GB Singh vs Union of India and Others 1973 Crl
LJ 485 Major Manohar Lal vs The Union of India and Anr
  JC 13018 Subedar Surat Singh vs The Chief Engineer Projects Beacon Co56 APO AIR 1970 J  K 179 referred to