The impermissibility of successive Court of Inquiry on the same complaints after the closure of an earlier investigation under the Army Act, 1950, and the consideration of the petitioner's health condition and superannuation in allowing retirement from service.

The writ petitioner in the above writ petitions is holding a Permanent Commission in the rank of Lt.Col Selection Grade in Indian Army. He was posted as Officer Commanding Military Farm, Bangalore between 18.03.1996 and 20.08.1999, and thereafter, he was posted as Deputy Director, Military Farm, Pune. During the time he worked in Bangalore in the above capacity, the Military Farm Employees Association, which according to the petitioner is an unrecognized Association, has made certain complaints about the petitioner. The petitioner would state that since the charges were serious, an independent investigation was conducted by the Zonal Regional Officer on 17.05.1999, who found there was no substance in the said complaints. Thereafter, Departmental investigations were carried out on the instructions of Director General, Military Farm by the Director of Military Farm Headquarters, Southern Command.

2. It is the further case of the petitioner that the complaint received by the Ministry of Defence on 15.05.1999 through Central Vigilance Commission was forwarded to the Deputy Director General of Military Farms, Army Headquarters, New Delhi to enquire and furnish report. According to the petitioner, a High Level Inquiry was again constituted, which recommended on 010. 1999 that the case to be closed. The said High Level Inquiry is to be treated as Court of Inquiry and therefore, its finding dated 010. 1999 has become final. It was found that the petitioner was not in command of the unit during the conduit period/month of origination of alleged complaints. The conclusion of the Southern Command, Pune was forwarded to the Army Headquarters, New Delhi, who has also rejected the complaints on the basis that some forgery has been committed.

2(a). In spite of the fact that the matter has reached finality, the third respondent has ordered for Staff Court of Inquiry on 30.10.1999. In those circumstances the petitioner wanted to see the original Convening Order made by the third respondent along with other records. According to the petitioner, the third respondent has no authority to order for such Court of Inquiry and there cannot be successive Courts of Inquiry on the same allegations under the Army Rules and Instructions. Even in the Staff Court Inquiry which was conducted earlier, the petitioner has raised his objection and witnesses were examined, however, the copies were not furnished to the petitioner, apart from the finding of the Staff Court Inquiry. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the convening order itself has been passed by the third respondent without any complaint.

2(b). It is also the case of the petitioner that before the Staff Court Inquiry which was conducted earlier and completed, the petitioner was shifted from Bangalore to Madras Engineering Group as per the order dated 11.08.2000 and in those circumstances, he filed W.P.No.14447 of 2001, for direction against the respondents, especially the third respondent to produce original convening order along with all its annexures, including the basic complaint against the petitioner containing 62 signatures and also to forbear the respondents from proceeding with the Court of Inquiry.

2(c). This Court while admitting the said writ petition, has also granted an order of interim stay of all proceedings of the third respondent initiated which has been continued.

2(d). The petitioner has also filed W.P.No.25334 of 2001, to forbear the third respondent from holding Staff Court of Inquiry or Unit Court of Inquiry or departmental Court of Inquiry or any other Inquiry or investigation/proceedings on the basis of the alleged complaints given by the unrecognized military farm employees association in the letters dated 20.01.1999, 19.02.1999 and 10.05.1999 and the said writ petition was admitted on 212. 2001 and order of interim stay granted was made absolute on 15.09.2003.

2(e). That writ petition was filed due to the reason that on the basis of the information given by