JUDGMENT

Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.-Leave granted.

2. The appellant, at all material times, held the rank of Acting Major General in the Indian Army. He filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the inquiry proceedings held against him and his trial by a General Court Martial under the Army Act, 1950. This writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Hence he has preferred the present appeal.

3. During the pendency of these proceedings and after the vacation of stay on the holding of a General Court Martial, the trial of the appellant has proceeded to a conclusion and a sentence has been passed that he be cashiered from service which is subject to confirmation as per the provisions of the Army Act, 1950. The appellant has filed additional grounds of appeal before us challenging these findings. An earlier writ petition being Misc. Petition 717 of 1991 which was filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the same connection has already been dismissed on 8th of October, 1991. However, the present writ petition has been examined on merits by the High Court and dismissed. We, therefore, propose to examine the various grounds urged by the appellant in support of his case. The appellant has argued his appeal in person at his insistence.

4. The appellant who held the substantive rank of Brigadier at the material time was posted in Agra from February 1988 to April 1989 as Commandant, Parachute Regimental Training Centre. In April 1989 he was given the acting rank of Major General and was posted as General Officer Commanding, Vth Mountain Division in the Eastern Command. In July 1989 the appellant was called to Agra as a witness in a Court Martial going on against one Major Mahapatra. He was asked to stay on for a Court of Inquiry being held in connection with certain financial irregularities which had occurred while the appellant had been posted at Agra. The proceedings of the Court of Inquiry commenced on 26.7.1989. On 13.10.1989, the appellant was attached to Military College of Telecommunication Engineering, Mhow, under Army Instruction 30/86 until finalisation of disciplinary proceedings against him. The appellant was directed to report for duty at Mhow. Thereafter the hearing on charges against the appellant commenced under Rule 22 of the Army Rules on 28th of October, 1989. After examination of witnesses and documents, the Court of Inquiry submitted its report as a result of which, on 23rd of January, 1991, orders were issued by the G.O.C.-in-C Central Command for assembly of a General Court Martial for trial of the appellant.

5. The appellant objected to the Presiding Officer of the Court on the ground that he was biased against the appellant. Therefore, the Presiding Officer retired from the Court and Lt. General Y.A. Mande was appointed as the Presiding Officer. Lt. General Mande was, however, withdrawn on the directions of the convening authority as he was not available due to another engagement. The next senior most officer was appointed as the Presiding Officer. After the court was constituted the trial began and has since concluded.

6. The appellant has alleged that the proceedings of the General Court Martial are vitiated because of bias on the part of the Court against him. He has further challenged the entire proceedings of the Court of Inquiry and of the General Court Martial on the ground that the principles of natural justice have been violated. He was not given an adequate opportunity of defending himself. He has alleged that he was denied the assistance of a suitable defending officer and/or a defending counsel of his choice. He has also alleged that he was not given the relevant documents or a copy of a report of the Court of Inquiry in order to enable him to put up his defence. There are also various other technical objections raised by him. All these objections have been examined and found to be of no substance by the High Court