Courts should refrain from interfering with show cause notices at the preliminary stage, as procedural irregularities during investigations ought to be challenged before the disciplinary authority. Judicial review is limited to supervisory oversight and should not function as an appellate authority over pending administrative proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition assails order dated 19 September 2025, passed by the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal[“AFT”, hereinafter], dismissing OA 2850/2025.

2. The conspectus of the controversy being limited, no detailed allusion to facts is necessary.

3. Based on certain allegations against the petitioner, a Court of Inquiry[COI”, hereinafter] was constituted. Consequent on the findings of the COI, a decision was taken that, in view of the nature of the allegations against the petitioner and the confidentiality of the issues involved, administrative action be taken to terminate his services. The petitioner was, therefore, issued a show cause notice dated 23 September 2024, proposing to dismiss the petitioner from service following the findings of the COI and giving him an opportunity to show cause there against under Rule 16(4)³ of the Air Force Rules, 1969.

³16. Dismissal or removal of officers for misconduct.—
(1) An officer may be dismissed or removed from service for misconduct by the Central Government but before doing so and subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) he shall be given an opportunity to show cause against such action
(2) Where the dismissal or removal of an officer is proposed on ground of misconduct which has led to his conviction by a criminal court, or where the Central Government is satisfied that for reasons to be recorded in writing, it is not expedient or reasonably practicable to do so, it shall not be necessary to give an opportunity to the officer of showing cause against his dismissal or removal.
(3) Where an officer has been convicted by a criminal court and the Central Government, after examining the judgment of the criminal court in his case and considering the recommendation about him of the Chief of the Air Staff, is of opinion that further retention of such officer in the service is undesirable that Government may dismiss or remove such officer from the service.
(4) In any case not falling under sub-rule (3), when the Chief of the Air Staff after considering the reports on an officer's misconduct, is of opinion that the trial of the officer by a court-martial is inexpedient or impracticable but the further retention of the officer in the service is undesirable, he shall so inform the officer and subject to the provisions of sub-rule (5) furnish to the officer all reports adverse to him calling upon him to submit in writing within a reasonable period to be specified, his explanation in defence and any reasons which he may wish to put forward against his dismissal or removal.

4. The petitioner filed his response to the show cause notice.

5. Instead of allowing the show cause notice to be adjudicated, the petitioner moved the AFT by way of OA 2850/2025. The prayer clause in the OA read thus:

“In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased:

(a) To quash the findings and recommendations of of COI conducted in pursuance of convening orders dated 10.01.2024 and 10.04.2024 as being violative of Rule 156 of Air Force Rules, 1969;

(b) To quash the show cause notice dated 23.09.2024 issued by the Chief of Air Staff proposing to dismiss the Applicant while dispensing with the requirement of convening the General Court Marital under Rule 16 of Air Force Rules, 1969; AND (c) An