JUDGMENT 1. - In these writ petitions, common questions have been raised for consideration. Notices were issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the writ petitions should not be admitted. The learned counsel for the parties desired that the writ petitions may be disposed of at the admission stage. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1276/1987, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the verdict given by the Court of Enquiry held in connection with the hiring of accommodation by non-petitioner No. 3 vide order dated 14th April, 1987. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Military Personnel. He joined military services in the year 1963, as 2nd Lieutenant and at present he is working as Major for the last 3 years. It is contended by the petitioner that he is posted in Alpha Composite Signal Regiment C/o 56 APO and is working under non-petitioner No. 3 who is the Commanding Officer of the said Unit. In the said Unit, the petitioner is, working as Quarter Mister, Alpha Composite Signal Unit, which deals with the matters pertaining to accommodation and stores known as Quarter Master Branch. It is further the grievance of the petitioner that his appointment has been ordered to be changed from the aforesaid Branch in Quarter Master, 14 Signal Park Section in the same Unit by non- petitioner No. 3, vide order dated 5th May, 1987. It may be stated here that this order is under challenge in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1217/1987. 4. The case of the petitioner is that on 30th March, 1987, he was called upon by non-petitioner No. 3 to discuss his problems relating to official accommodation allegedly having been sublet in favour of one Mr. Richardas, Field Officer, in the State Bank of India, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur. In fact, non-petitioner No. 3 wanted to take consultations from the petitioner as the petitioner was dealing with the accommodation side. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner bona fide believed that non-petitioner No. 3 has dishonestly and with the intention to cheat the Government had obtained sanction for 1,333 Sq. ft. when the accommodation hired was only 1,100 sq. ft. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner bona fide believed that non-petitioner No. 3 has dishonestly and with the intention to cheat the Government had obtained sanction for 1,333 Sq. ft. when the accommodation hired was only 1,100 sq. ft. The petitioner has contended that had it been a case of 1,100 sq. ft. respondent No. 3 would have been sanctioned an amount of Rs. 900/- approximately for reimbursement while he was entitled to Rs. 1000/- as rent. In the circumstances, the petitioner's contention is that as a duty bound officer he was obliged to make a report of the aforesaid matter to the concerned authorities under Para 317 of the Defence Service Regulations. Consequently the petitioner had submitted his complaint on 4th Apri1, 1987, to the Station Commander, Jaipur. In the complaint, the petitioner contended that there is a dishonest misappropriation of Government money and preparation of false documents by non-petitioner No. 3. It was contended that the area which was agreed to be rented out to non-petitioner No. 3 was much less than what was shown by non- petitioner No. 3 in the plan submitted by him for obtaining sanction from the Station Commander, Jaipur. In the complaint it was contended that a part of the area, which he was supposed to retain with him as per the sketch plan and sanction included a room on the back side near kitchen shown as store. In fact, the room was in the possession of the Field Officer. Shri Richards of the State Bank of India. In the writ petition, it has been further averred that the Station Commander passed orders for convening Court of Enquiry vide his order No. 6003/3/Q/261 dated 14th April, 1987. Another grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that as per Para 518 of the Defence Service Regulations the Court of Enquiry should be presided over by an officer senior in rank to the accused and other members should be at least equal in rank to him. It is, thus, submitted that the constitution of Court of Enquiry as ordered by the Station Commander, Jaipur was illegal and in contravention of the aforesaid paragraph 518 of the Defence Service Regulation. One of the members constituted for the enquiry was Col. N.K. Sharma who is a re-employed officer and working on the post of Captain. It is, thus, submitted that the constitution of Court of Enquiry as ordered by the Station Commander, Jaipur was illegal and in contravention of the aforesaid paragraph 518 of the Defence Service Regulation. One of the members constituted for the enquiry was Col. N.K. Sharma who is a re-employed officer and working on the post of Captain. He could not have acted independently in the matter of disciplinary case against non-petitioner No 3. Lt. Col. Ram Chandra was another member of the Enquiry who was re-employed officer. His re-employment is also one rank below to the one at which he retired. The petitioner has also contended that from Lt. Col. K. G. Jhalnawala of the Headquarters has got information that the Court of Enquiry has submitted its report and according to the report allegations against non-petitioner No. 3 have not been found to be correct and. he has been exonerated and the petitioner is going to be tried for an offence of making false accusation against non-petitioner No. 3. It is in this manner that this writ petition has been filed on various grounds for seeking remedy as prayed for in the writ petition. 5. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1217/1987, the allegations are that on account of the prejudices, non-petitioner No 5, Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta has changed the appointment of the petitioner in order to tarnish his position amongst other junior members to wreak vengeance illegally and without jurisdiction. The contentions in the writ petitions are that the change of appointment from the post of Quarter Master 'A' Composite Signal Regiment to 14 Signal Park is completely without jurisdiction and violative of the provisions of Para 85 of the Defence Service Regulations and since the change in the appointment has been made in colourable exercise of powers on extraneous grounds, hence, the impugned order No. 88/491 (Anna. 2 ) is liable to be quashed and respondent No. 5 Col. B.K. Gupta be directed to restore the appointment of petitioner as Quarter Master (QM) 'A' Composite Signal Regiment. 6. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1945/87, the petitioner has challenged the order of attachment dated 12th June, 1987, as amended by order dated 13th June, 1987 whereby the petitioner was attached outside Jaipur at Nasirabad. 7. B.K. Gupta be directed to restore the appointment of petitioner as Quarter Master (QM) 'A' Composite Signal Regiment. 6. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1945/87, the petitioner has challenged the order of attachment dated 12th June, 1987, as amended by order dated 13th June, 1987 whereby the petitioner was attached outside Jaipur at Nasirabad. 7. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 127(/1987, respondents No 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have filed a common reply and respondent No. 3. Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta preferred to file separate reply. In common reply, respondents No. 1,2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have contended that in the matter of complaint dated 4th April, 1987, a Court of Enquiry enquired into it and it was found that respondent No. 3 has not committed any fraud or irregularity in hiring the house on rent. Respondents have further submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner was found to be false and appeared to be motivated. They have also submitted that the General Officer Commanding 12 Corps have been pleased to direct that disciplinary action be taken against the petitioner and he was subsequently attached to 61 Engineer Regiment C/o 56 APO vide order dated 8/6/ 1987 of the General Officer Commanding in Chief, Southern Command, Pune. In the reply, the various allegation: made by the petitioner have been denied. The respondents have asserted that the Court of Enquiry was properly constituted and there was no irregularity in the Court of Enquiry and that the finding of fact arrived at by the Court of Enquiry cannot be reviewed in a proceeding under Article 226. The respondents have admitted that two Court of Enquiries, on 21st April, 1977. were ordered by respondent No. 3. It was also admitted that another enquiry was ordered against the petitioner as be took out a secret letter from the file without C.O's permission. As regards the statutory complaints filed by the petitioner, the respondents have submitted that the allegations made therein were found by the Central Government after due consideration to be devoid of any substance and merit. Accordingly vide Ministry of Defence, Government of India's letter dated 16th September, 1987, the Government of India rejected the said complaint. Respondent No. 1 in his reply has categorically denied various allegations made by the petitioner against him. Accordingly vide Ministry of Defence, Government of India's letter dated 16th September, 1987, the Government of India rejected the said complaint. Respondent No. 1 in his reply has categorically denied various allegations made by the petitioner against him. He has submitted that the complaint made by the petitioner on 14th April, 1987 was after enquiry found to be false and consequently the General Officer Commanding, 12 Corps directed that disciplinary action be taken against the petitioner. And the petitioner was attached to 62 Engineering Regiment C/o 56 APO vide order dated 8th June, 1987 of the General Officer Commanding in Chief, Southern Command, Pune. Respondent No. 3 has also submitted that the complaint made by the petitioner was false and was made by the petitioner knowingly to be false. Respondent has further pointed out that the complaint was made to forestall a defence which the respondent was going to take against the petitioner on the report of 22nd February, 1937, as the petitioner deceitfully delayed his move to operational area, Jodhpur when he was specifically called on 18th February, 1987, on re-joining from leave the petitioner instead of moving to Jodhpur went to hospital on 18th February, 1981. A Court of Enquiry was held and subsequently disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, the result of which is still awaited. Respondent No. 3 has also submitted that a Court of Enquiry was also ordered in the matter of non-clearance of some advance and in the enquiry a decision has been taken for the recovery of Rs. 550.78 from the petitioner. 8. As regards the other two cases, one in the matter of his attachments to Nasirabad and another about his change in the status. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner was posted as Quarter Master as a composite signal regiment by Military Secretary. It has been further pleaded that since there are two posts of Quarter Master, therefore, it was within the competence of the authority to post the petitioner as Quarter Master on any of the two posts. The petitioner cannot, therefore, have any grievance on this account. The petitioner is still on the strength of Alpha Composite Signal Regiment even after attachment. In Alpha Composite Signal Regiment, there are two Quarter Masters. The petitioner cannot, therefore, have any grievance on this account. The petitioner is still on the strength of Alpha Composite Signal Regiment even after attachment. In Alpha Composite Signal Regiment, there are two Quarter Masters. The petitioner was changed from one Quarter Master's appointment to another Quarter Master's appointment in 14, Signal Park Section, which is a part of the War Establishment of Alpha Composite Signal Regiment. In the matter of petitioner's grievance about his attachment, the respondents have submitted that the attachment was perfectly justified as in the order of attachment was passed by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief. Southern Command on administrative reasons. The respondents have urged that even after attachment the petitioner continues to hold the same rank status and he draws similar pay, privileges and position as before his attachment. In the submission of the respondents, the petitioner enjoys all privileges as an officer and still on the composite strength of Alpha Signal Regiment. The respondents have also denied that attachment amounts to suspension In the reply, the respondents have contended that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as there are statutory remedies available to the petitioner under the Army Act for seeking redress. The respondents have also submitted that the petitioner has already availed alternative efficacious remedy by seeking interviews with the higher authorities. The petitioner also made statutory complaints which were referred to the higher authorities and 3rd statutory complaint is also pending consideration. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent Shri S.B. Mathur and Shri N.C. Chaudhary have also contended that the orders under challenge are of interlocutory nature and writ petition is not maintainable to challenge such orders. 9. Shri C.K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, in all the three Writ petitions has raised the following grounds:- (a) That the Court of Enquiry was not properly constituted. (b) That the findings recorded by the Court of Enquiry are not justified. From the evidence on record, the allegations made by the petitioner stand proved. (c) That the three Court of Enquiries have been ordered by respondent No. 3 against whom the petitioner has bled complaint. The petitioner filed a complaint against Lt. Col. B. K. Gupta regarding filing of false documents and fraud on 4th April, 1987. The Court of Enquiry was ordered with respect to the complaint dated 14th April, 1987. (c) That the three Court of Enquiries have been ordered by respondent No. 3 against whom the petitioner has bled complaint. The petitioner filed a complaint against Lt. Col. B. K. Gupta regarding filing of false documents and fraud on 4th April, 1987. The Court of Enquiry was ordered with respect to the complaint dated 14th April, 1987. The petitioner had made a statutory complaint to the Government of India for not convening of the Court of Enquiry and subsequent to it the two Court of Enquiries were made by respondent No. 3 one regarding delay in moving to Jodhpur and another for non-clearance of some advance on 4th April, 1987 and the third was ordered on 20th May, 1987. It is, thus, submitted that these Court of Enquiries were ordered after the petitioner had made a complaint against respondent No. 3. (d) That respondent No. 3 was a person biased against the petitioner on account of the complaint dated 4th April, 1987. (e) That the petitioner was not associated with the Court of Enquiry ordered by non-petitioner No. 3 except as a witness. Such action of the respondent is violative of Rule 130 of the Army Act. (f) That the opinion of three Court of Enquiries has not been supplied to the petitioner, subsequently be has been denied a valuable right to defend himself against the disciplinary matters covered by the subject- matter of Court of Enquiries. (g) As regards disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner in the matter of his false complaint dated 4th April, 1987, the contention of Shri Garg is that the disciplinary authority had already expressed his opinion and as such no useful purpose would be served in taking disciplinary action against the petitioner. (h) That the opinion expressed by the Court of Enquiry is not consistent with the finding of the Court of Enquiry. (i) That the orders of attachment of the petitioner and the alleged order of changing his status, are not supported by any statutory provisions and in fact are based on mala fides of respondent No. 3. 10. Shri S.B. Mathur, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that the petitioner in his capacity as Quarter Master is a staff officer to the Commanding Officer and he is responsible for accommodation quartering and otter administrative matters for all personnel belonging to the same unit. 10. Shri S.B. Mathur, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that the petitioner in his capacity as Quarter Master is a staff officer to the Commanding Officer and he is responsible for accommodation quartering and otter administrative matters for all personnel belonging to the same unit. The petitioner himself recommended House No. C-69, Amba Badi for his Commanding Officer Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta. The proceedings were processed by the petitioner at all stages of its preparation and the petitioner obtained signatures of Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta on the proceedings containing 6 copies each having 6 to 7 pages on 17th October, 1986. The petitioner after obtaining signatures of Lt. Col. B. K. Gupta who was first to sign obtained signatures of other members and submitted the board proceedings to Station Headquarters for sanctioning by the Station Commander, which was subsequently approved on 30th October, 1986. The Board recommended the suitability and rent assessed by the representatives of Defence Estate Office. The final sanction was given by the Station Commander. The sketch and proceedings were prepared under the guidance of the petitioner at all stages which the Court of Enquiry has found. The plinth area of the Store room 12x7 ft. was not included in the plinth area i. e. 1333 sq. ft. endorsed on the sketch and the tent assessment has been done on plinth area of 1333 sq. ft. only. The store room was never rented by the land- lord to Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta, as it was already in the occupation of an employee of the Bank. There was, thus, no fraud on the part of Lt. Col B.K. Gupta. Shri Mathur, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has also submitted that the findings of the Court of Enquiry reveal, that the petitioner obtained signatures of Lt. Col. B. K. Gupta on the proceedings and that the plan of house area was measured by the representatives of the Defence Office in the presence of the officers. In the Court of Enquiry, it was also proved that rent has been assessed on plinth area 1,333 sq. ft. which, as per norms, comes to Rs. 1,066/-, whereas the rent assessed and sanctioned by the Station Commander and paid to the owner is for Rs. l,000/-per month only. In the Court of Enquiry, it was also established that no sub-letting of any port- ion occupied by Lt. Col. ft. which, as per norms, comes to Rs. 1,066/-, whereas the rent assessed and sanctioned by the Station Commander and paid to the owner is for Rs. l,000/-per month only. In the Court of Enquiry, it was also established that no sub-letting of any port- ion occupied by Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta was done by Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta and thus he did not commit any fraudulent act. Shri Mathur has also submitted that summary of evidence was recorded according to the provisions of the Army Rules. Full opportunity was given to the petitioner. Shri Mathur has further submitted that in order to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner and in all fairness he was detached from the command of respondent No. 3 and was placed under the command of separate officer namely Col. Mayer Commanding Officer, 62 Engineering Regiment. Nasirabad at a different location, so that even remote prejudice is not caused to the petitioner. He has further submitted that according to the due process, the charge was heard by the Commanding Officer namely Col. Mayer where the petitioner remained present throughout and was given full opportunity to present his case and also to cross-examine the witnesses and to make statements and produce his own witnesses. At the conclusion of the due process the Commanding Officer. Col. Mayer in exercise of his legal discretion ordered recording to summary evidence. He has further submitted that the GOC after going through the entire record and the opinion given by the various authorities passed the order on his being prima facie satisfied for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. In fact, he had agreed with the opinion of the Court of Enquiry. Shri N.C. Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 adopted the arguments of Shri S.B. Matbur and contended that the Court should be slow in interfering with the proceedings of the Court of Enquiry and other disciplinary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. The are certain documents which very important for taking a decision in this case. There is Annx. R/5, which is reproduced as under: "Directions of GOC I Corps on the C of I proceedings on the complaint submitted by SL- 1316 YMAJ H.S. Sidhy against his CO IC -21894 P. Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta A Comp Sig Reft. I agree with the opinions of the Court, the Off. St. There is Annx. R/5, which is reproduced as under: "Directions of GOC I Corps on the C of I proceedings on the complaint submitted by SL- 1316 YMAJ H.S. Sidhy against his CO IC -21894 P. Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta A Comp Sig Reft. I agree with the opinions of the Court, the Off. St. Cdr. Jaipur and the Officer 61 (1) Sub-Area. 2. IC-11894 P Lt. col. B.K. Gupta CO Comp Sig. Regt. has not committed any fraud or irregularity in consequence to hiring of House No. C-69 Amba Bari, Jaipur on rent reimbursement basis and has not gained financially in any way. The allegations made by S.L. 131 Y Maj H.S. Sidhu against Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta is false and appears to be motivated. 3. Maj. H.S. Sidhu is guilty of unbecoming conduct and direct that disciplinary action be taken against Maj. H.S. Sidhu. Sd/-Station : C/O 56 APO (A.K. Chatterjee)Dated 03 June, 87 Lt. Gen GOC 12. Vide this order, it, Gen. GOC A.K. Chatterjee concurred with the opinion of the Court of Enquiry and observed Lt. Col. R.K. Gupta did not commit any fraud or any irregularity in hiring of House No. C-69, Amba Bari, Jaipur on rent reimbursement and he has not gained any benefit. He also expressed that the allegations made by Maj. H.S. Sidhu against Lt. Col. B. K. Gupta was false and appeared to be motivated. He also opined and expressed that as Maj. Sidhu is guilty of unbecoming conduct and directed that the disciplinary action be taken against Maj. Sidhu. 13. There is alto Annx. R/2 on record which is reproduced as under:- "Directions of General Officer Commanding 12 Corps of the Court of Enquiry proceedings the move of SL-1316 J Maj. H.S. Sidhu QM, a composite Signal Regiment to Jodhpur during OP Trident. 1. I agree with the opinion of Commanding Officer Composite Signal Regiment. The Officer delayed his move to Jodhpur till 24 Feb. 87 though the medical authorities had cleared him on 20 Feb, 87. 2. I direct that disciplinary action to be taken against the officer. Sd/- Station : C/o 6 APO (A.K. Chatterjee) Dated 02 June, 87 Lt. Gen. General Officer Commanding" 14. Another important document is Annexure 23, which is on the file of Writ Petition No. 1275/1987. It records the findings made by the Court of Enquiry. 2. I direct that disciplinary action to be taken against the officer. Sd/- Station : C/o 6 APO (A.K. Chatterjee) Dated 02 June, 87 Lt. Gen. General Officer Commanding" 14. Another important document is Annexure 23, which is on the file of Writ Petition No. 1275/1987. It records the findings made by the Court of Enquiry. Along with it, there is the opinion of the Court which is reproduced as below : 1. Lt. Co. B.K. Gupta, CO, A Camp Sig Regt. was detailed as Presiding Officer for hiring of houses in the stn. for the month of Oct. 86. 2. Maj. H.S. Sidhu, QM, A Comp Sig Regt, obtained the sanction of Lt,. Col. B.K. Gupta on the bd proceedings on 17 Oct. 86 prior to the signatures of rent of the members of the bd. 3. Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta went out on ex on 19 Oct. 86 and returned back on 30 Oct. 86. 4. House No C-69 Ambabari was hired on rent reimbursement basis in the month of Oct. 86 for Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta, CO, A Comp Sig Regt. 5. Hiring of C-69 Ambabari was recommended to Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta by Maj. H.S. Sidhu. 6. There is an error of inclusion of one store room 12' x 7' in the sketch all with the bd proceedings which should not have been there. The total plinth area excl store room 12' x 7' from the existing sketch comes to 1343 sq.ft. and as per the std. norms adopted by the DEO of 80 paise per sq. ft. the rentals comes to Rs. 1074/- pm. 7. Rental for the house has been fixed as Rs. 1,000/- pm only due to ceiling imposed by the Govt. 8. House C-69 Ambabari has two portions. The front portion is occupied by Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta and rear portion is on lease with State Bank of India, Viswakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur and is actually occupied by Mr. Richard a bank employee. 9. Willingness certificate given by the owner prior to convening of the bd by stn HQ shows the plinth area agreed for hiring as 1,100 sq. fit for a rental of Rs. 1,000/-p m. whereas sketch of the house att with the bd proceedings shows 1,333 sq. ft. written in hand by rep of DEO. 10. The sketch of the house was prepared next day by unit draughtsman. fit for a rental of Rs. 1,000/-p m. whereas sketch of the house att with the bd proceedings shows 1,333 sq. ft. written in hand by rep of DEO. 10. The sketch of the house was prepared next day by unit draughtsman. The plinth area was measured by rep DEO the previous day and rentals were assessed accordingly. 11. No portion of the house was sub-let by Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta. 12. The Garage of the house through bears a plate of State Bank of India, VKI Area Jaipur, but is in actual possession of Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta. 13. The house was inspected by Senior Health Supdt. SHO Jaipur on 27 Oct., 86 and he signed the proceedings the same day. 14. Forged signatures of the owner exists on the sketch att to the bd proceedings. Signatures of the owner on the sketch is not obligatory as no proper lease agreement is entered into with the owner for hiring houses on rent re-imbursement basis. 15. Bd proceedings were processed by Maj. H.S. Sidhu at all stages of its preparations. 16. Rentals as approved on recommendations of the bd are being claimed by Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta. 17. Rentals of Rs. 1,000/- p. m. is regularly being paid in advance to the owner by Lt. Col. B.K. Gapta." "Opinion of the Court: 1. The Court is of the opinion that no financial gain accrues to Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta as a consequence to hiring House No. C-69 Ambabari on rent reimbursement basis. The allegations made against the offr. the false. 2. The hiring does may have been falsified probably by Maj. H.S. Sidhu for reasons best known to him," Another important document is Anax. 26, which is reproduced below:- "Tentative Charge sheet: "The accused SL-1316Y Major Hardeep Singh Sidhu, A Composite Signal Regiment attached to 62 Engineer Regiment, and officer holding specialist Commission in the Regular Army is charged with: "Making a false accusation against a person subject to the Army Act knowing such accusation to be false. in that he, At Jaipur, on 14 April, 1987, while bringing dishonestly to the notice of his next superior vide his letter No. 1316/HSS/Pers/07 dated 04 April, 1987 falsely stated "Lt. Col. in that he, At Jaipur, on 14 April, 1987, while bringing dishonestly to the notice of his next superior vide his letter No. 1316/HSS/Pers/07 dated 04 April, 1987 falsely stated "Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta has committed an act of dishonesty to defraud the Government for the amount that he is drawing illegally against the area for which he is not entitled to draw/claim the money" having known it to be false." 15. From the facts disclosed above, it is thus, clear that the petitioner made a complaint against Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta. A Court of Enquiry was ordered. The Court of Enquiry has recorded its finding. On the basis of the finding, opinion of the Court and directions of GOC 12 Corps, disciplinary action has been initiated against Maj. R.S. Sidhu. Courts of Enquiries have been ordered by respondent No. 3 against whom he had filed a complaint. The petitioner also made a statutory complaint. In all the enquiries, finding has been recorded against the petitioner. In two cases, disciplinary action is going to take place and in one adverse order has been passed. 16. The findings of the Court of Enquiry are on record in the form of Annx. 23 and the opinion of the Court is a part of the findings made by the Court of Enquiry. It is true that Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta was exonerated from all the allegations made by Maj H.S. Sidhu against him in his complaint and the Court of Enquiry held that no portion of the house was sub-let by Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta and that the total area rented out comes to 1333 sq. ft., whereof the rent comes to Rs. 1,074/- per month, but due to the ceiling imposed by the Government, rent has been fixed as Rs. 1000/- p m. The Court opined that the allegations made by Maj H.S. Sidhu against Lt. Col. B K. Gupta were false. There is some dispute between the parties that the opinion of the Court was not given to the petitioner and that the opinion of the Court is not in conformity with the findings recorded by the Court of Enquiry. The opinion of the Court on the original file was placed before us and, we are satisfied that it is part of the finding of the Court of Enquiry. The opinion of the Court on the original file was placed before us and, we are satisfied that it is part of the finding of the Court of Enquiry. As a practice also, the findings and the opinion of the Court are kept separately. But the opinion is treated as a part of the findings of the Court of Enquiry. 17. Shri Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised three objections in this regard which may be summarised as follows: 1. The opinion of the Court of Enquiry is contrary to or in excess of the findings of the Court of Enquiry. 2. Findings do not absolve respondent No. 3 completely. 3. The Disciplinary Authority while ordering for taking action almost expressed his opinion rendering the action futile. 18. We feel that the submissions of Shri Garg are not without any substance. In the opinion, it has been expressed that hiring documents may have been falsified probably by Maj H.S. Sidhu for the reasons best known to him, but from the findings such an inference cannot be drawn. 19. The following findings of the Court of Enquiry go to prove that the complaint made by the petitioner was not totally false : "6. There is an error of inclusion of one store room 12' X7' in the sketch att with the bd proceedings which should not have been there. The total plinth area excl store room 12'x7' from the existing sketch comes to 1343 sq. ft. and as per the std norms adopted by the DEO of 80 paise per sq. ft., the rental comes to Rs. 1074/- p.m. 8. Willingness certificate given by the owner prior to convening of the bd by stn HQ shows the plinth area agreed for hiring as 1,100 sq. ft. for a rental of Rs. 1,000/- p. m. whereas sketch of the house att with the bd proceedings shows 1,333 sq. ft. written in hand by rep of DEO. 12. The Garage of the house though bears a plate of State Bank of India, VKI Area Jaipur, but is in actual possession of Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta." 20. In Annexure 25, while agreeing with the finding of the Court of Enquiry, Brig. Jagjit Singh had expressed that Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta could have been more careful in signing the board proceedings/documents. 21. Col. B.K. Gupta." 20. In Annexure 25, while agreeing with the finding of the Court of Enquiry, Brig. Jagjit Singh had expressed that Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta could have been more careful in signing the board proceedings/documents. 21. A look at Annexure R/5 would reveal that the disciplinary authority has clearly expressed his opinion that the allegations made by Maj. H.S. Sidhu against Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta is false and appears to be motivated. The authority has further expressed that Maj. H.S. Sidhu is guilty of unbecoming conduct, while there is no reference of such allegations in the finding of the Court of Enquiry. Though, in the opinion, it is stated that the allegations was against the officer are false. It is true that no case was made out against respondent No. 3 as no financial gain accrued to him and it is true that allegations were not wholly correct. It may be noted that the purpose of Court of Enquiry is to find out whether there is a prima facie reason to think that an employee is at fault. 22. A perusal of Annexure R/5 the order passed by Lt. Gen. A. K. Chatterjee dated 3rd June, 1987 would disclose that he completely expressed his opinion against Maj. H.S. Sidhu and, therefore, any disciplinary action proposed to be taken against Maj. H.S. Sidhu was of no use. Further it is also clear clear from the findings of the Court of Enquiry that Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta committed no fraud or irregularity in hiring house No. C-69, Amba Bari, Jaipur on rent reimbursement basis. But there was not findings recorded by the Court of Enquiry that the complaint was false to the knowledge of Maj. H.S. Sidhu and, there was nothing in the finding to indicate that Maj. Sidhu was guilty of unbecoming conduct. In fact, the contention of Shri Garg in this regard is well founded that the opinion of the Court of Enquiry was far beyond the findings of the enquiry and the same is the case with regard to the directions given by Lt. Gen. A. K. Chatterjee in Annx. R/2. Sidhu was guilty of unbecoming conduct. In fact, the contention of Shri Garg in this regard is well founded that the opinion of the Court of Enquiry was far beyond the findings of the enquiry and the same is the case with regard to the directions given by Lt. Gen. A. K. Chatterjee in Annx. R/2. It is also well settled that in the face of clear opinion expressed by the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary proceedings are bound to be prejudicial, as an Enquiry Officer of what so ever rank he may be is likely to be influenced by the opinion of the disciplinary authority. It is also true that when there is already an opinion no useful purpose would be served in making any investigation. Further when the disciplinary authority has already expressed his opinion while proposing a disciplinary action, in our opinion, no useful purpose would be served for staying the disciplinary proceedings. We are further of the opinion that any enquiry based on such a direction would be void being a clear violation of the canons of fair play and natural justice. Thus, we quash the order Annexure R. 5 dated 3rd June, 1987, whereby a decision was taken for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner. However, we may state that convening a Court of Enquiry is not a part of disciplinary control as it lies within the domain of administrative control. We have also observed that the complaint made by the petitioner was not wholly false there were certain irregularities in the matter as pointed out in findings No. 6, 9 and 12 of the finding of the Court of Enquiry referred to above. Though, it may be true that respondent No. 3 Lt. Col. B. K. Gupta committed no fraud and/or obtained or gained any financial benefit. We may also state that the petitioner has also expressed his mistake in filing the complaint against Lt. Col. B. K. Gupta and expressed his feeling of respect to him before us in the curse of arguments. Further, it is not a very serious matter, which requires any harsh penalty. In the circumstances, we feel, it would be advisable if no further proceedings are held in the matter and the time may be utilised for more purposeful task. Col. B. K. Gupta and expressed his feeling of respect to him before us in the curse of arguments. Further, it is not a very serious matter, which requires any harsh penalty. In the circumstances, we feel, it would be advisable if no further proceedings are held in the matter and the time may be utilised for more purposeful task. However, it would be open to the disciplinary authority to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law by re-casting the order for taking disciplinary action. 23. We do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that the Court of Enquiry was not properly constituted as vide para 518 of the Defence Service Regulations. the Court of Enquiry has to be presided over by a person who is senior in rank to the Army Officer whose conduct is to be enquired into. It is contended that Lt. Col. Mayor I. D. Sharma or Col. N. K. Sharma was not holding any rank superior to the one held by the petitioner. Another two officers Capt. T. R. Sharma and Capt. P. Balkrishan or Lt. Col. Ramchandra and Capt. Lalwani were not equal in rank to the petitioner. The respondents have categorically denied the allegations made by the petitioner. Respondents have submitted that Maj. I.D. Sharma is senior to the petitioner and other two members were Captains and thus the Court of Enquiry was properly constituted. There is an affidavit of Maj. I.D. Sharma in support of the written statement. It is also rightly contended by the respondents that the Court of Enquiry was constituted as per Rule 177 (2) of the Army Rules, which are statutory in character in comparison to Regulation 518. Even otherwise Regulation 518 is not mandatory in nature. Thus, it cannot be held that composition of the Court of Enquiry was illegal. 24. With regard to another enquiry regarding movement of SL 1316 Y Maj H.S. Sidhu, the disciplinary authority Lt. Gen. A.K. Chatterjee has expressed while ordering taking disciplinary action that the officer delayed his move to Jodhpur till 25th February, 1987, though the medical authority had cleared him on 20th February, 1987. For the reason given by us for quashing Annx. R/5, we also quash Annx. R/2. 25. Gen. A.K. Chatterjee has expressed while ordering taking disciplinary action that the officer delayed his move to Jodhpur till 25th February, 1987, though the medical authority had cleared him on 20th February, 1987. For the reason given by us for quashing Annx. R/5, we also quash Annx. R/2. 25. With regard to the 3rd enquiry, the case of the respondent is that the amount alleged to he retained by the petitioner has been re-paid towards settlement of the mess fund and the proceedings were dropped. As such, no order is required to be passed in this matter. 26. In the writ petition No. 1945/97 the petitioner has challenged his order of attachment The petitioner was ordered to be transferred on attachment from Jaipur to Nasirabad. It is contended by the petitioner that the order of transfer on attachment to Nasirabad is in contravention of the mandatory and prohibitory provisions as contained in para 452. A of the Defence Service Regulation. The contention of the petitioner is that as per Army Instruction No. 30/86 an attachment order should only be passed when a prima facie case is established against the delinquent officer. In reply, the respondents have contended that the petitioner is still on the strength of Alpha Composit Signal Regiment even after attachment. In Alpha Composite Signal Regiment, there are two Quarter Masters and the petitioner is one of the Quarter Master The change was effected from one Quarter Master's appointment to another Quarter Master appointment in 14 Signal Park Section. Further the case of the respondents is that the attachment is till finalisation of the disciplinary case against him. It is further stated by the respondents that the petitioners' promotion will not be affects on account of attachment, which is not by way of any punishment and even after attachment the petitioner enjoys all privileges as an officer. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not want to interfere in the order of attachment. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved in this regard, he has a right to make a representation to the authorities concerned. 27. In the matter of statutory complaint filed by Maj. H.S. Sidhu, we are of the opinion that respondent No. 1 was competent to take a decision for not initiating any action and further no mala fides have been proved for dropping the enquiry. 28. 27. In the matter of statutory complaint filed by Maj. H.S. Sidhu, we are of the opinion that respondent No. 1 was competent to take a decision for not initiating any action and further no mala fides have been proved for dropping the enquiry. 28. In D.B. Writ Petition No. 1217/1987, the case of the petitioner is that his appointment as Quarter Master, 14 Signal Park by respondent No. 5 is mala fide, illegal and without jurisdiction, while the respondents have contended that the allegations are absolutely unfounded. It is contended by the respondents that GOC-in-C, Southern Command ordered to attach the petitioner with 62 Engineer Regiment till finalisation of disciplinary case against him. The attachment order was issued under the authority of General Officer Commanding-in- Chief. Southern Command who is empowered to attach the officer any where in his command in connection with the disciplinary case. Further the respondents have contended that the petitioner continues to be on the strength of A composite Signal Regiment and as soon as be is detached he will be back to his present unit. A Composite Signal Regiment is authorised Two OM Sec of S.L. Candra as per War establishment 4178/1945/2 The petitioner was posted as OM, 14 Signal Park in the same Regiment. Both the post of OM carry equal emolutions and are at par. After careful considering the matter, we are of the opinion that the contention of the respondent is correct. The order was passed after the direction was given by the disciplinary authority to take action. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order Annx. 26, impugned in the writ petition. 29. Before parting with the judgment, we may state that this Court feels that discipline is the bedrock upon which the entire edifice of the Army has been built, it being the most powerful and potent equipment for the armed forces. As such in the matters relating to discipline in the Army power given under Article 226 of the Constitution is to be exercised most sparingly only in appropriate cases where there is blatent violation of principles of natural justice or the order is against the canons of fair play or the impugned order is irrational or the finding is not supported by any evidence or it can be said that no reasonable person could have reached such a finding. We observe that we have quashed Annx. R/2 and Annx. R/5. as we are convinced that the same were in clear violation of the canons of fair play and natural justice. For other reliefs no such case has been made out. 30. In the premises aforesaid, we pass the following orders in the writ petitions: (a) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No 1217/1987 is dismissed and it is held that there was no change in the appointment of the petitioner as alleged by him. The appointment of the petitioner as Quarter-Master in 14 Signal Park Section of Alph.t Signal Regiment is not illegal. (b) D B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1276/1987, is partly allowed and it is held that the Court of Enquiry convened by order dated 14th April, 1987, in the matter of the report submitted against respondent No. 3 is validly convened. Annx. R/2 whereby a direction was given for taking diceiplinary action against the petitioner regarding the move of SL 1816Y Maj. H.S. Sidhu to Jodhpur is quashed. Similarly. Annx. R/5, whereby the order taking disciplinary action was passed against the petitioner in the matter of the complaint filed by him against Lt. Col. B.K. Gupta is set aside. However, it would be open to the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioner by recasting the order for taking disciplinary action in accordance with law after taking into consideration the observations made by this Court. It is further held that the rejection of the statutory complaint made by the petitioner by the Government is not illegal and falls for no interference. The other prayers made by the petitioner in the writ petition are also denied. (c) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1945/1987 is dismissed. (d) The parties are left to bear their own costs. D.B. C.W.P. No. 1217/1987 Dismissed, D.BC.W.P.No. 1276/1987 ?Partly allowed and D.B. C.W.P. No. 1945/1987 Dismissed. *******