( 1 ) W. P. NO. 9189 of 2004 is filed to declare ihe action of the first respondent, (Senior Registrar and Officer Commanding troops, Military Hospital, Secunderabad), in issuing charge sheet against the petitioner, under Section 69 of the Army Act 1950 read with Section 354 I. P. C. , on the basis of the complaint dated 19. 01. 2004 filed by the third respondent (Mrs. Roshni, w/o. Craftsman V. K. Saroj), as without jurisdiction, mala fide, biased and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, by way of an interlocutory application in the said writ petition, had sought for a direction to the first respondent to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the complaint dated 19. 01. 2004 lodged by the third respondent, and the consequential charge sheet issued to him. This Court, by order in WPMP. No. 1 1806 of 2004 in W. P. No. 9189 of 2004 dated 18. 5. 2004, directed the respondents not to pass any final orders. Alleging violation of the order, in WPMP. No. 11806 of 2004 in W. P. No. 9189 of 2004 dated 18. 05. 2004, C. C. No. 23 of 2005 was filed. Questioning the action of the first respondents in not permitting the petitioner to avail his entitlement to annual leave of 60 days, standing to his credit for the calendar year 2005, as being violative of his fundamental rights under articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, W. P. No. 20283 of 2005 was filed before this Court.

( 3 ) SINCE all the three cases, (W. P. No. 9189 of 2004, c. C. No. 23 of 2005 and W. P. No. 20283 of 2005), relate to the same incident and are based on the action initiated against the petitioner, under Section 69 of the Army Act read with section 354 I. P. C. , they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

( 4 ) THE parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in W. P. No. 9189 of 2004.

( 5 ) FACTS, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army Medical Corps on 26. 02. 1988 and after completing more than 16 years of service, was posted as a Nursing Assistant in the Military Hospital, secunderabad, on 16. 12. 2002, whereat he was entrusted with the duties of Ward Master of Family Ward II. On 19. 01. 2004 when he was on duty, between 08. 00 hrs and 16. 00 hrs, in the guise of examination, the petitioner is said to have used criminal force and to have invaded the private parts of the third respondent, who had been admitted to the Family Ward, thereby violating her dignity. Under the charter of duties of a ward Master, the petitioner should not have examined any female patient. Para 51, of the Regulation for medical services of Armed Forces, stipulates that examination of a female patient should be conducted in the presence of a nurse or a female attendant and in an emergency, when a female attendant is not available, the husband of the patient and another male attendant is to be present during examination and consent of the patient obtained even for their presence. The regulations further require the Medical Assistant not to take part in intimate nursing procedure on female patients and if it is necessary to administer treatment, to a female patient, the medical assistant is not to be left alone with the patient.

( 6 ) THE petitioner, as Ward Master, is alleged to have taken advantage of his position and to have invaded the private parts of the third respondent in the guise of medical examination and thereby to have committed an offence under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950, read with Section 354 i. P. C. Since the petitioner was subject to Army rules and regulations a Court of Inquiry was appointed which, after due consideration of the evidence, recommended initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. In exercise of the powers under Section 101 of the. Army Act read with para 392 (k) of the Army Regulations, the petitioner was taken into Army custody on 06. 01. 2005 for initiating summary court martial. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document