JUDGMENT

KANIA, J.:— This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India praying for an order quashing the sentence of "Severe Reprimand" imposed on the petitioner by respondent No. 3, Major General B. S. Malik, and for setting aside his attachment with 54th Field Regiment (hereinafter referred to as "Fd. Regiment"). Respondent No.1 is the Defence Secretary of the Union of India. Respondent No. 2 is Captain P. R. Dutta and respondent No. 3 is Major General B. S. Malik of Headquarters 12 Corps.

2. The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army on January 12, 1969, and was promoted to the substantive rank of Major on March 11, 1983. In January 1986, the petitioner joined 63rd Fd. Regiment as second in command. The 24th Rising Day of the Unit to which the petitioner was attached fell on September 1, 1986. Several guests were invited for the celebration of the occasion. At about 10.30 p.m. on August 29, 1986, the petitioner visited the single officers quarters of the Unit to persuade respondent No. 2, Capt. P. R. Dutta Regimental Medical Officer of the Unit, to loan his steel almirah, taken, by him from the Army Stores, for two or three days for use in the guest room of the Unit. Respondent No. 2 refused to loan the said almirah and it appears that there was a hot exchange of words and an altercation between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 in the latters quarters at about 11.00 p.m. On the complaint of respondent No. 2, made on telephone, that he had been beaten up by the petitioner on the head and several other parts of the body and at his request that the commanding officer should visit the quarters and see the injuries sustained by him, the commanding officer visited the single officers quarters at about 15 minutes past midnight of 29 / 30th August, 1986. He met the petitioner and respondent No. 2 as well as several other officers of the Unit. It appears that he made some sort of inquiries at that time and made a noting that the accusation made by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner appeared to be unsubstantiated.

3. A perusal of the documents recording the aforesaid incident prepared by the cornmanding officer, Col. Satbir Singh, shows that the so called investigations made by him were some time prior to 1-30 a. m. in the night of 29th August. At that time respondent No. 2 who had suffered head injuries was hardly in a position to participate in the investigation. Thereafter, respondent No.2 had to be hospitalised for a few days and his medical report shows that he suffered a couple of fairly severe head injuries, that it was suspected that he might be suffering from concussion of the brain and had injuries on several other parts of his body. Respondent No. 2 was hospitalised and had to be transferred from a small hospital to a big hospital and was on the list of seriously ill persons for a few days. Thereafter, in or about September -1986 a staff court of in6Iuiry was held which opined that due to contradictions and lack of evidence it was not possible to pin-point the blame for injuries sustained by respondent No. 2 on 29130th August, 1986. From the counter-affidavit it appears that the proceedings of the court of inquiry were reviewed by the Commanders in chain up to General Officer and Commanding 4 Corps who came to the conclusion that although there were no eye-witnesses to the alleged assault on respondent No. 2, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence, corroborated by the independent evidence of the head injuries suffered by respondent No. 2, showing that the petitioner was responsible for the same. The report made by the Commanders in chain also fairly shows that according to them, although there was sufficient evidence of provocation by respondent No. 2, the petitioner acted in an immature and tactless manner by laying his hands on respondent No. 2. In these circumstances, the commanding officers inter alia directed that disciplinary action be taken against the petitioner for acting immaturely