JUDGMENT 1. - Under challenge in this writ petition are two orders-one Annexure/3 dated 16th November, 1987, a show cause notice for administrative action and the other Annexure/4 dated 8th December, 1987. 2. The petitioner at the relevant time was Lt. Col. He was returning from Pokaran to Jaipur on 26th March, 1986 in Military `Jonga' No. 81-B-19417L. The petitioner was Commanding Officer (CO) of the Unit 116 Med. Regiment The petitioner was himself driving the vehicle and the vehicle met an accident and went into a ditch. The petitioner wanted to avoid collision with some cows which suddenly appeared on the road in front of the petitioner's vehicle. The petitioner and other occupants of the vehicle received minor injuries. The petitioner received an order about the convening of Court of Inquiry, which was convened on 31 March, 1986 by Headquarters 97 (Ind) Arty. Brigade which was next higher authority information of the unit of the petitioner. The Court of Inquiry submitted its report on or about 20th July, 1986. On 2nd July, 1987, the petitioner received another convening order dated 6th June, 1987, which was issued by HQ 12 Corps, respondent No. 3, which is still a next higher information of 97 (Ind ) Arty. Brigade for investigation into the circumstances under which the aforesaid accident took place. The earlier Court of Inquiry was convened by 98 (Ind) Arty. Brigade, whereas the latter was convened by HQ 12 Corps, after a lapse of more than one year of the accident and that too when already a Court of Inquiry had been convened and concluded. The second Court of Inquiry carried out its investigation from 3rd July, 1987 and continued upto 9th September, 1987. The petitioner was not associated with the proceedings of this Court of Inquiry as required under Rule 180 of the Army Rules, On 24th November, 1987, the petitioner received a show cause notice, dated 16th November, 1987, issued by HQ 12 Corps (Annx. 3), whereby an administrative action is sought to be taken against the petitioner on the ground that the second 'Court of Enquiry had blamed the petitioner for removal of the accident vehicle from the site of the accident prior to the arrival of the members of the Court of Inquiry and without obtaining formal approval from HQ 97 (Ind) Any. Brigade, which was mala fide. Brigade, which was mala fide. In reply to the show cause notice the petitioner requested for supply of copy of the report of the Court of Enquiry, but the same was not supplied, though other documents were supplied to him. The petitioner was also called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 913.64 on account of the cost of damages to the vehicle, which met the accident. A reply to the show cause notice was filed. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. So far as the contention of Shri Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, that when the first court of inquiry was held, a second court of Inquiry could not be held, we find no merit in it. It appears that the earlier Court of Inquiry was presided over by an officer who was junior in rank to the petitioner and therefore it was thought that the Court of Inquiry is not in accordance with the rules and voidable and, a second Court of Inquiry was ordered. We find that there can be no objection to it, as otherwise, the petitioner could have objected to that the earlier Court of Inquiry was not proper because one of the members who was sitting in it was junior in rank and, hence the same was in contravention to Rule 518 of the Defence Service Regulations. Rule 518 of the above regulations provides that when the character or military reputation of an officer is likely to be a material issue, the presiding officer of 'he Court of inquiry wherever possible, will be senior in rank and other members at least equivalent in rank to that officer. There has been an amendment in this rule and it is to the effect that, "The personnel detailed to constitute the Court of Inquiry or Station Board should have no personal interest, direct or indirect. in the subject matter of the investigation". It appears, perhaps, that one of the members sitting in the first Court of Inquiry, might have had some personal interest and hence a decision was taken that the said Court of Inquiry was not properly constituted and was in contravention of Rule 518 and, therefore, a second Court of Inquiry was ordered. We are of the opinion that so far as this objection is concerned, there is no merit in it. 5. We are of the opinion that so far as this objection is concerned, there is no merit in it. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner next argued that the petitioner should have been associated with the Court of Inquiry. We are of the opinion that there is no such Rule so far as the Court of Inquiry is concerned. It is to collect evidence against the officer and come to a conclusion whether a GCM or DCM should be convened. We may say that Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954 is not applicable to the present case; the reason is that it is a case in which administrative action is involved and therefore a Court of Inquiry was ordered. It may be stated that there is no rules governing the contemplation of administrative action against an Army Officer. Therefore, the Army Headquarters vide letter No. 32908/AG/PSI dated 18th April, 1979, laid down the procedure for such action. The aim of the letter is to lay down the procedure and policy regarding the award of censure in the Army. It is provided that the award of censure to an officer or a JCO is an administrative action, in accordance with the custom of the service, not governed by any rules and regulations. Procedure has been provided for taking administrative action and so far as the procedure for awarding censure is concerned, para to of the said letter provides that before issue of a letter of 'displeasure' or `severe displeasure' the authorities concerned will obtain an explanation of the officer or the JCO concerned in regard to his involvement or responsibility in respect of a lapse. The letter calling forth an explanation will take the form of a 'show cause notice', Hence, be fore any action is taken, a show cause notice must be given to the person concerned. A show cause notice is not necessary in case the officer is associated with the Court of Inquiry. When an officer is not associated with the Court of inquiry, a show cause notice is to be given Therefore, in our opinion, association of the petitioner was not necessary in the Court of Inquiry in case any administrative action was contemplated. If the inquiry was held in his absence, the petitioner in that case was only entitled to the show cause notice, which was issued to the petitioner. 6. If the inquiry was held in his absence, the petitioner in that case was only entitled to the show cause notice, which was issued to the petitioner. 6. Coming to the next submission made by Shri Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was entitled to receive a report on the report or opinion of the Court of Inquiry. A bare perusal of Annexure/3 would reveal that the above show cause notice is on the basis of the report of the Court of Inquiry. Annexure/3 will show that it is mentioned in Para 2 that the Court of Inquiry has blamed the petitioner for ordering removal of accidented vehicle from the site of the accident prior to the arrival of the members of the Court of Inquiry without obtaining formal approval from HQ 9; (1) Article Brigade. Thus, the above show cause notice is based on the report of the Court of Inquiry, or its opinion, whatever nomenclature it may be given. A perusal of Rule 184 of the Army Rules will show that any person who is tried by a Court-martial in respect of any matter or thing which has been reported by a court of inquiry shall be entitled to a copy of the proceedings of a court of inquiry including any report, and any person whose character or military reputation is affected by anything in the evidence in the report of a court of inquiry, unless the Chief of the Army Staff sees reason to order otherwise. The case of the petitioner falls under Sub-rule (b) of Rule 184 of the Army Rules, 1954. We have already said earlier that character and military reputation is not in question. So far as contemplation of administrative action is concerned, we may state that Rule 184 (b) is not applicable. As stated earlier, para 2 of the show cause notice is based on the report of the Court of Inquiry. If any person is asked to show cause against the report of the Court of Inquiry, the minimum requirement of principles of natural justice is that he must be supplied the copy of the report, or opinion of the court of Inquiry. If any person is asked to show cause against the report of the Court of Inquiry, the minimum requirement of principles of natural justice is that he must be supplied the copy of the report, or opinion of the court of Inquiry. That apart, there is no bar in any of the Rules or Regulations that a copy of the report of the Court of Inquiry or its opinion shall not be supplied to the person against whom any administrative action is contemplated. We are of the opinion that after the show cause notice was served, the petitioner demanded a copy of the report or opinion of the Court of Inquiry he should be supplied the same as the show cause notice of the proposed administrative action is based on it. 7. We may state that vide Annx. 4, the petitioner was required to deposit a cum of Rs. 913.64 on account of cost of damage to the vehicle. An opportunity was necessarily to be given to show cause against the proposed action if financial liability is fastened on any person. Reference has been made to Section 90 (g) of the Army Act, wherein power is vested to make deductions of any sum required to make good any loss, damage or destruction of public or regimental property which, after due investigation, appears to the Central Government to have been occasioned by the wrongful act or negligence on the part of the Officer. Before any order is passed against the petitioner Calling upon h'm to make good the loss, it is necessary that an opportunity of hearing should he provided to him. 8. Consequently, we partly allow this writ petition and quash the notice Annexure 4 and direct the respondents to proceed with the proposed administrative action according to law in the light of the observations made above.Petition Partly allowed. *******