Back
GREF Personnel Face Dual Disciplinary Control Under Army Act and CCS Rules: J&K High Court
Disciplinary authorities hold the discretion to choose between the Army Act or the CCS (CCA) Rules when proceeding against GREF/BRO personnel , the has ruled while dismissing a challenging a Memorandum of Charges against a officer.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, presiding over a Single Bench, held that members of the (GREF) operate under a — one prescribed under the , and the other under the — with the choice of proceeding resting entirely with the competent disciplinary authority.
The Charges That Sparked the Challenge
The petitioner, Badavath Kishan , an Executive Engineer (Civil) holding a rank equivalent to Major, was served a Memorandum of Charges dated under . The charges alleged that while posted as Officer Commanding of 81 RCC/762 BRTF (P) Vijayak between and , he had entered into illegal financial transactions with a CPL/Mazdoor deployed within his unit's area of responsibility.
Specifically, the petitioner was accused of inappropriately receiving ₹4.50 lakh through cash and digital payments from CPL Mazdoor Alauddin Ansari — a person with whom he had official dealings — in violation of . Bank statements obtained from Axis Bank and State Bank of India allegedly corroborated the transactions, including a ₹1 lakh transfer made on .
Petitioner's Challenge: Three Prongs
The petitioner's counsel, , advanced three primary grounds for quashing the Memorandum of Charges. First, he argued that the preceding violated the mandatory provisions of , which requires that an affected person be present throughout the inquiry, permitted to cross-examine witnesses, and allowed to produce defence evidence. Second, he contended that the charges were vague and based on surmises and conjectures. Third, he alleged that the charges had been served belatedly.
The respondents, represented by Deputy Advocate General , countered that the was premature since the inquiry was yet to commence, and the petitioner could raise his defence during the departmental proceedings.
: The Court's Analysis
The Court carefully examined the statutory position of GREF personnel, tracing the framework established by and of 1960, which applied specified provisions of the , and , to GREF members for disciplinary purposes. Directly recruited GREF personnel are simultaneously governed by the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and certain provisions of the Army Act.
Relying on the 's decisions in and , the Court clarified the practical application of this dual framework. Grave offences — such as those committed in relation to an enemy, offences on active service, mutiny, or desertion — may warrant proceedings under the Army Act, including trial by . Less grave disciplinary matters, however, may be dealt with under the CCS (CCA) Rules.
Applying this framework, the Court found that the alleged financial misconduct with a subordinate was
"not of a grave nature,"
justifying the disciplinary authority's choice to proceed under the CCS (CCA) Rules rather than the Army Act. Consequently, even assuming non-compliance with Rule 180 of the Army Rules during the
, this was not fatal to the departmental proceedings initiated under the 1965 Rules — a position that distinguished the precedents cited by the petitioner, which concerned cases where personnel were actually tried under the Army Act.
at the
The Court also rejected the vagueness challenge, observing that the statement of articles of charges contained full particulars: the specific amount received, the identity of the individual involved, the relevant time period, and the details of corroborating bank statements. The Court invoked to emphasise the limited scope of at this preliminary stage:
"It is only if the charges framed are contrary to any law or the same are absolutely vague so as to prevent the delinquent official from making an effective defence to the same that the Court can interfere."
On the delay argument, the Court noted that the transactions pertained to 2021–2022 and that a was conducted before the charges were framed in February 2025. There was no undue delay in the circumstances.
The Decision
Dismissing the as devoid of merit, the Court vacated the interim order and declined to interfere at the . The ruling reinforces that disciplinary authorities retain broad discretion in determining the applicable procedural framework for GREF personnel and that writ courts will not second-guess such choices absent clear legal infirmity or vagueness in the charges. The departmental inquiry against the petitioner will now proceed under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
