# Lt.Col. V.S. Chhauker v. Union of India and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 726
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-09-26
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32540 of 2001
- **Bench:** M. Katju, V.N. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lt-col-v-s-chhauker-v-union-of-india-and-others-39940
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India- Article 226- This
Court is very reluctant to interfere in
army matters as that would interfere
with Army discipline. It is only in very
rare cases that this Court will interfere in
army matters. Under the Army Act, Rules
and Regulations there is a detailed
procedure about giving adverse entry
and
making
representation/complaint
against, and the petitioner can avail of
the same. (Held in para 9).

In para 4 of the counter affidavit of
respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 it is stated
that the petitioner's statutory complaint
is pending before respondent no. 1. We
therefore direct respondent no. 1 to
decide the said complaint by a speaking
order within two months of production
of certified copy of this order.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE V.N. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32540 of 2001

Lt. Col V.S. Chhauker (IC-38789P)

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Col. Sri R.A. Pandey (Retd.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India- Article 226- This
Court is very reluctant to interfere in
army matters as that would interfere
with Army discipline. It is only in very
rare cases that this Court will interfere in
army matters. Under the Army Act, Rules
and Regulations there is a detailed
procedure about giving adverse entry
and
making
representation/complaint
against, and the petitioner can avail of
the same. (Held in para 9).

In para 4 of the counter affidavit of
respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 it is stated
that the petitioner's statutory complaint
is pending before respondent no. 1. We
therefore direct respondent no. 1 to
decide the said complaint by a speaking
order within two months of production
of certified copy of this order.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
against
the
impugned
order
dated
9.5.2002, Annexure 2 to the petition and
for a mandamus directing the respondents
to promote the petitioner to the rank, of
Colonel and to set aside from the
petitioner's dossier his complete ACR for
the period 1.6.98 to 31 May, 99.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

3. It is alleged in para 7 of the writ
petition that in June 98, during the
absence of the Commanding Officer
respondent no. 5, the petitioner while
officiating
as
CO
noticed
that
approximately Rs. 2 lacs unaccounted
cash was lying with the Subedar Major.
The petitioner apprised about it to the CO
as soon as he returned from leave. The
CO did not take kindly to this saying that
it was already in his knowledge and
threatened to spoil the petitioner's ACR if
he raked up the matter. Thereafter theCO
became vindictive towards the petitioner
and started harassing him including social
boycott of the petitioner's family. The
petitioner then sought an interview with
the
Brigade
Commander.
The
correspondence exchanged between the
Brigade Commander, the CO and the
petitioner on this issue between 18.11.98
to 1.4.99 is attached as Appendices A to
O of the petitioner's statutory complaint
enclosed as Annexure 1. In para 9 of the
petition it is alleged that the petitioner
was granted interview by the Brigade
Commander on 2.12.98, during which he
apprised the latter about the unaccounted
funds saying that without a Court of
Inquiry the extent and responsibility for
the unaccounted funds could not be
pinpointed. The Brigade Commander
asked the petitioner to put up the
complaint
in
writing.
This
further
infuriated the CO, who again threatened
to spoil the petitioner's ACR if he did not
withdraw the complaint. It is alleged that
later the respondent no. 4 pressurised the
petitioner into withdrawing the complaint
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Lt.Col. V.S. Chhauker V. Union of India and others
727
and gave an assurance that the petitioner
would not be harmed.

4. In para 10 of the petition it is
alleged that Selection Board was held in
December, 1998 and the petitioner was
intimated that he was approved for
promotion to the rank of Colonel. In para
12 it is alleged that the respondent no. 5
wrote the petitioner's ACR for the period
1.6.98 to 31.5.99 on 1.6.99 wherein he
lowered petitioner's Box Grading to 7
points as compared to 8 points awarded
by the same IO in the previous ACR. The
petitioner was also communicated the
order of the respondent no. 5. The
petitioner submitted a non statutory
complaint
dated
9.8.99
which
was
rejected by the order dated 12.1.2000. The
petitioner was intimated the drop in
Performance vide letter dated 9.5.2000. It
is alleged in para 18 of the petition that
subsequent to the Drop in Performance
two outstanding ACRs have been earned
by the petitioner from his present unit.
Vide Annexure 3 and 4. The petitioner
was
subsequently
denied
promotion.
Hence he filed this writ petition.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed
by the respondent no. 5. In para 4 of the
counter affidavit the allegation in para 7
of the writ petition were denied, and it is
stated
that
the
allegation
regarding
unaccounted money in the Regiment is
totally false, concocted and misleading. In
fact in the absence of respondent no. 5 in
the capacity of Officiating CO, the
petitioner did not command the Regiment
effectively leading to a situation where
the troops welfare was neglected. The
petitioner was performing the duties of
Account Officer since Dec. 1997 and he
had authenticated its entry and rendered
certificates to quarterly audit boards thrice
that all transactions were correct. In para
6 it is stated that based on petitioner's
complaint two special audit boards were
ordered after allegation by Commander
96 Infantry Brigade. Three audit boards
were ordered after petitioner's allegation.
All the Boards found that the allegations
were totally baseless.

6. A counter affidavit has also been
filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1,2 and
3. We have perused the same. In para 3 it
is stated that the selection Boards are
constituted to assess the suitability of all
eligible officers of a batch for promotion
to the next rank. Such officers are given
Special Review with one more report in
addition to the reports with which he has
already been considered. Although the
petitioner
had
been
approved
for
promotion as Colonel by the Selection
Board in June, 1998, subsequently he was
given a remark of drop in performance
and hence he cannot be promoted. It is
alleged that if in the opinion of the
Military Secretary during the intervening
period between approval for promotion
and actual promotion the officer does not
maintain satisfactory level of performance
it is treated as a case of drop in
performance. Such officers are given a
Special Review. In para 6 it is stated that
there is nothing on record to support the
contention of the petitioner to establish
that the then CO (respondent no.5)
became vindictive and started harassing
him. In para 11 it is stated that consequent
to establishment of drop in performance
of the petitioner vide his confidential
report, the petitioner was taken off the
senior command course, after drop in
performance was approved on 4.8.2001
by the Military Secretary. In para 12 it is
stated that the petitioner's non statutory
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
complaint was considered by the GOC
and rejected.

7. A rejoinder affidavit has been
filed. We have perused the same.

8. In Writ Petition No. 35296 of
1997 decided on 13.2.2002 (Major
Ranabir Singh versus Union of India and
others) this court observed that it is very
reluctant to interfere in army matters as
that would interfere with army discipline.
We are in agreement with the aforesaid
Division Bench decision. It is only in very
rare cases that his court will interfere in
army matters. Under the Army Act, Rules
and Regulations there is a detailed
procedure about giving adverse entry and
making representation/complaint against
it, and the petitioner can avail of the same.
It is not for this Court to consider whether
the drop in performance given to the
petitioner was justified or not as that is the
task of the appropriate army authority.
Moreover, there are disputed questions of
fact in this case, and hence writ is not the
appropriate remedy.

9. In para 4 of the counter affidavit
of respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 it is stated
that the petitioner' statutory complaint is
pending before respondent no. 1. We
direct respondent no. 1 to decide the said
complaint by a speaking order within two
months of production of certified copy of
this order.

10. With the aforesaid observation,
this writ petition disposed off.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGRAWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 498 of 1999

U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and
others

...Appellant
Versus
U.P.
Rajya
Setu
Nigam
Sanyukta
Karmchari Sangh
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri V.R. Agrawal
Sri A.K. Gupta
Sri P.N. Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arun Prakash

Chapter VIII Rule 5 of High Court Rules-
U.P. State Briedge Corporation is a State
within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India. It is supposed to
act reasonably and not arbitrarily. The
services
of
the
respondents
writ
petitioners
have
been
terminated
without even giving show cause notice
or opportunity of hearing before passing
the impunged orders of termination.
Thus, the impugned orders have been
passed in gross violation of Principles of
natural justice, fair play and equity and
have
rightly
been
quashed
by
the
learned Single Judge.

In view of the foregoing discussions, we
do not find any merit in these Special
Appeals and they are dismissed.
Case Law Referred:
1995(5) SCC 75
1993 L.I.C. 651
AIR 1995 S.C. 1163
2000 (1) E.S.C. (Alld.) 165