( 1 ) THIS petition involves adjudication of the petitioners challenge to order dated 28. 7. 1995 vide which he was discharged from naval service with effect from 10. 8. 1995 under Section 15 (2) (a) of the Navy Act, 1957 (for short, the Act)read with Regulation 216 of the Regulations navy, Part II (Statutory) (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations ). The facts:

(1) While the petitioner was posted as lieutenant in Fleet Mail Office, INS arnala, Lieutenant, K. L. Godara, executive Officer, INS, Makar lodged complaint dated 7. 3. 1994 that he i. e. , the petitioner, who was the real uncle of his wife had been maintaining sexual relation with her. Along with the complaint, Lt. K. L. Godara enclosed copies of letters, one written by his own wife and the one written by the wife of the petitioner.

(2) On receipt of the complaint, the statements of Lt. P. Rawat and Lt. S. K. Gupta, both of INS, Venduruthy were recorded, who confirmed the allegation made by Lt. K. L. Godara against the petitioner. The matter was then examined in Southern Naval command Head Quarters and it was decided that the case be taken up with the Naval Head Quarters for termination of the petitioners service in terms of Regulation 216 of the regulations. Accordingly, Letter no. 2010/50/109, dated 9. 5. 1994 was sent to the Chief of the Naval Staff, new Delhi (respondent No. 1 herein ).

(3) Respondent No. l issued show-cause notice dated 12. 1. 1995 to the petitioner proposing termination of his service under Section 15 (2) (a) of the act read with Regulation 216 of the regulations.

(4) The petitioner submitted reply dated 7. 2. 1999 and denied the allegation made by Lt. K. L. Godara. At the same time, he made a counter allegation against Lt. K. L. Godara that he was having affair with a divorced lady from Delhi.

(5) The reply of the petitioner was examined by Shri A. K. Sachdeva, commadore, Director Personnel services, Naval Head Quarters, who opined that the explanation given by the petitioner was untenable and that the allegation levelled against the petitioner of having incestuous sexual relationship with his niece i. e. , Mrs. Vidya Godara is established. He recommended that action may be taken in terms of the proposal contained in the show-cause notice. The recommendation of Commadore, a. K. Sachdeva was approved by respondent No. 1. Thereafter, the matter was sent to the Ministry of Defence.

(6) On 24. 7. 1995, the then Defence minister of the State (Raksha Rajya mantri) approved the recommendation made by respondent No. 1 to discharge the petitioner from naval service under Section 15 (2) (a) of the act read with Regulation 216 of the regulations. The decision taken by the Central Government was given effect to by respondent No. 1 by issuing order dated 28. 7. 1995.

( 2 ) THE petitioner challenged the termination of his service on the following grounds:

(1) that respondent No. l does not have the jurisdiction to discharge or dismiss an officer under Section 15 (2) (a) of the Act and, therefore, the order dated 28. 7. 1995 is liable to be declared nullity;

(2) that the allegation of his having illicit relationship with Mrs. Vidya Godara was totally false and was fabricated by the complainant for extraneous reasons;

(3) that the order of discharge from service is punitive in character and such an order could not have been passed without holding enquiry in accordance with the rules of natural justice and without assigning reasons, and

(4) that the impugned order is vitiated due to non-application of mind inasmuch as respondent No. 1 did not consider the reply filed by him in response to show-cause notice dated 7. 2. 1995.

( 3 ) IN the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, a preliminary objection has been taken to the very maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of non-impleadment of the Union of India as party to the writ petition. On merits, the respondents have pleaded that action was taken against the petitioner strictly in accordance wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document