S. B. Wad ( 1 ) THIS LPA is filed by the Union of India against thejudgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7/07/1988. The learned Singlejudge had quashed the show-cause notice dated 18. 2. 88 and the order ofremoval dated 15. 11. 78, passed by the Union of India against the respondent. The respondent was working as a Captain in the Army. He was served witha show-cause notice under Rule 14 of the Army Rules, calling upon him toexplain as to why he should not be removed from service. The show-causenotice reads:- show-Cause Notice Under Army Rule 14 (1) It has come to notice that you addressed an application dated 13/08/1977 pertaining to service matters direct to Shri Shanti Bhushan, the Lawminister in violation of the provisions of para 557 of Regulations for the Army,1962. In doing so you have committed grave irregularity and misconductunbecoming the position, conduct and code of discipline expected of an Armyofficer. (2) It is further observed that this is not the first time you have committed a grave irregularity. In the past also you had indulged in acts ofcommission/ommission which were against the norms of army disciplineand unbecoming conduct of an army officer. Some of the instances are asfollows:- (A) In May 74, while you were attached to 14 GTC, you sent anapplication No. 1c 20942/ak/p dated 15 Mar. 74 direct to Gen. T. N. Raina, the then GOC-in-C, Western Command in contravention of the provisions of para 552 of the Regulations forthe Army and AO 227/71. (b) A Court of Inquiry held on 19. 4. 73 and subsequent days underthe orders of Lt Col. M. K. . Kotwal, OC, Western Commandsignal Regiment, to inquire into the matter regarding handingover the keys of Ambala Sub Area suite, to MES Inspectionbungalow Simla by you to Capt. Dhan Raj, at the time ofhanding over the charge, of SSO to him, revealed that you committed the following grave irregularity :- (i) That during Apr. 72, one suite in MES Inspection Bungalow Simla was reserved for allotment to the officers comingon duty to Simla from HQ Sub Area but the keys of thesuite were to be kept with the SSO, Sta HQ Simla. (ii) That on your arrival at Simla on posting as SSO, you unauthorisedly occupied the sub-area suite in the month of Oct. 72 and continued to stay there till 14 Apr. 73. (ii) That on your arrival at Simla on posting as SSO, you unauthorisedly occupied the sub-area suite in the month of Oct. 72 and continued to stay there till 14 Apr. 73. (iii) That you were allotted married accommodation brock-HURST 17 on 16 Dec. 72 vide Station HQ letter No. 201/bs/viii dated 16th Dec. 72 and that you took possession ofthe same on 20 Jan. 73 and so, from 20 Jan. 73 till 14 Apr. 73 you were in possession of two Government accommodations viz. , Sub-Area suite and BROCKHURST 17. (iv) That vide Station order No. 767 dated 11 Jan. 73 the SSOwas to maintain an occupation/vacation register for the subarea suites. According to this order the rules applicable toother suites of MES Inspection Bungalow as regards thehiring charges were also made applicable to Sub-Area suite. Despite the publication of the above order neither youvacated the sub-area suite nor you maintained the occupation/vacation register, though yon were the SSO of Stationhq Simla. (v) That you handed over the charge of the SSO to Capt. Dhanraj on 30 Jan. 73 but you did not hand over the keys ofthe sub-area suite to him. You handed over the keys ofsub-area suite to Capt Dhan. Raj, Offg. SSO on 14 Apr. 72but you refused to sign the inventory of the items kept insub-area suite. (3) Action against you for irregularities/misconduct highlighted in para2 above, was then not processed, hoping that you would correct yourself,keeping in mind the convictions and punishments awarded to you as a result ofyour disciplinary trial on other counts. (4) It is, however, clear that you have not applied the due correctiveand that you keep involving yourself in acts which are highly derogatory fromthe point of view of Army discipline. Punishments awarded to you as a resultof earlier disciplinary trial has also produced no salutary effect on you. Through your repeated acts of grave misconduct, it is evident that you are notamenable to the Code of Army discipline, of the conduct expected of Armyofficers. (5) In addressing your application mentioned in para I above, youhave committed serious misconduct, which is highly unbecoming of an Armyofficer. The COAS before whom the case was placed is thus of the opinionthat repeated grave misconduct on your part as brought out in paras 1 and 2above renders your further retention in service undesirable. (5) In addressing your application mentioned in para I above, youhave committed serious misconduct, which is highly unbecoming of an Armyofficer. The COAS before whom the case was placed is thus of the opinionthat repeated grave misconduct on your part as brought out in paras 1 and 2above renders your further retention in service undesirable. He is further ofthe opinion that your trial by Court ,martial in addressing your applicationdirectly to the Law Minister in violation of para 557 of Regulations for thearmy, 1962, is inexpedient. He has, therefore, directed in terms of Armyrule 14 that you shall be so informed and be called upon to submit in writingyour explanation and defence. (6) You are hereby called upon to submit in writing your explanationand defence within 25 days of the receipt of this notice. If no explanation isreceived within the stipulated period, it shall be presumed that you have noreasons to urge in favour of your retention in service and the case will be progressed under the said Army Rule. (7) A copy of each of your application dated 13 Aug. 77 as also letterdated 15 Mar. 74 and Court of Inquiry proceedings are enclosed to enable youto prepare your defence. These should be returned alongwith your explanation. (8) Please acknowledge receipt. sd/- (R. Gupta)Coldips (A)Kritey Adjutant General ( 2 ) THE respondent filed his reply to the show-cause notice. In hisreply he submitted that he had not written any letter to Shri Shanti Bhushan,the then Law Minister, on 13. 8. 77. As regards the direct application to Gen. T. N. Raina, GOC, Eastern Command, in violation of the Army Rules, thesubmission of the respondent was that no action, was taken for four years and,therefore, it could not be used as a ground after the lapse of four years. Asregards the unauthorised occupation of a suit in Simla, he submitted that hewas under a great mental distress at that time on account of the serious illnessof his son and other troubles. The Court of Enquiry which had earlierinvestigated the matter did not take any action against him on this ground. He further submitted that keeping in view his commendable services in thetwo wars against Pakistan, his high academic qualifications and his low medicalcategory as well as his family commitments) he should be given a chance toredeem himself. The explanation of the respondent was found to be unsatisfactory. He further submitted that keeping in view his commendable services in thetwo wars against Pakistan, his high academic qualifications and his low medicalcategory as well as his family commitments) he should be given a chance toredeem himself. The explanation of the respondent was found to be unsatisfactory. The GOC-in-C recommended the termination of service of the respondentunder Rule 14. Before doing so a report was obtained by the GOC-in-C fromthe various Commanding Officers under whom the respondent had served fromtime of time. The conclusion was that "in spite of five earlier conviction therespondent was continuing in the acts of indiscipline and. has proved to be anincorrigible person. He was a great liability to the service and was a bad andunhealthy influence on the other officers and on the men he commanded". The Chief of the Army Staff agreed with the recommendation of the actionunder Rule 14. As required by the said Rule the matter was REFERRED TO to thegovernment of India, which also agreed and the final order of removal w,aspassed under Rule 14. ( 3 ) IN the writ petition the respondent has tried to show that from1968 onwards he had been exposing various officers for their irregular/illegalacts in the army and the action of removal under Rule 14 is because of thebias of the superior officers. In order to justify his action he has assertedthat he had also represented the matter to the Shah Commission, which was theinvestigating into the abuse of power and illegal actions during Emergency bythe Government of Late Mrs. Indira. Gandhi He has also submitted in the petition that some of the grounds relied upon against him were stale and were thesubject matter of the Court of Enquiry earlier. In (this) earlier Enquirieseither the charges have not been proved and where they are proved he hasundergone the punishment for them. ( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge held that in spite of the repeated opportunities the Union of India did not produce the concerned file so as to give thecorrect picture as to. why action under Section 14 was taken. The learnedjudge also found that the order of removal did not state as to why the trialby Court Martial was inexpedient. The rejection of respondent s explanationby the Union of India is also faulted by the learned Single Judge as beingbased on suspicion. why action under Section 14 was taken. The learnedjudge also found that the order of removal did not state as to why the trialby Court Martial was inexpedient. The rejection of respondent s explanationby the Union of India is also faulted by the learned Single Judge as beingbased on suspicion. The learned Judge also held that Union of India hasfailed to prove that dispensation of the trial was inexpedient and was based onobjective grounds: ( 5 ) RULE 14 of the Army Rules reads:- "14. Termination of service by the Central Government on accountof misconduct- (l)When it is proposed to terminate the service of anofficer under Section 19 on account of misconduct, he shall be givenan opportunity to show-cause in the manner specified in sub-rule (2)against such action :-Provided that this sub-rule shall not apply :- (a) Where the service is terminated on the ground of conduct whichhas led to his conviction by a criminal Court; or (b) Where the Central government is satisfied that for reasons to berecorded in writing, it is not expedient or reasonably practicableto give to the officer an opportunity of showing cause. (2) When after considering the reports on an officer s misconduct,the Central Government or the Chief of Army Staff is satisfiedthat the trial of the officer by a Court-martial is inexpedientor impracticable, but is of the opinion, that the further retentionof the said officer in the service is undesirable, the Chief of thearmy Staff shall so inform the officer together with all reportsadverse to him and he shall be called upon to submit in writing,his explanation and defence. Provided that the Chief of the Army Staff may withhold fromdisclosure any such report or portion thereof, if, his opinion, itsdisclosure is not in the interest of the Security of the State. In the event of the explanation of the officer being considered unsatisfactoryby the Chief of the Army Staff, or when so directed by the Central Government, the case shall be submitted to the Central Government with the officer sdefence and the recommendation of the chief of the Army Staff as to thetermination of the officer s service in the manner specified in sub-rule (4 ). (3) Where, upon the conviction of an officer by a criminal Court,the Central Government or the Chief of the Army Staff considers that the conduct of the officer which has led to his conviction renders his further retention in service undesirable, acertified copy of the judgment of the criminial Court convictinghim shall be submitted to the Central Government with therecommendation of the Chief of the Army Staff as to thetermination of the officer s service in the manner specified insub-rule (4 ). (4) When submitting a case to the Central Government under theprovisions of sub-rule (2) of sub-rule (3), the Chief of the Armystaff shall make his recommendation whether the officer sservice should be terminated, and if so, whether the officershould be: (a) dismissed from service; or (b) removed from the service; or (c) called upon to retire; or (d) called upon to resign. . (5) The Central Government, after considering the reports and theofficer s defence, if any, or the judgment of the criminal Court,as the case may be, and the recommendation of the Chief of thearmy Staff, may dismiss or remove the officer with or withoutpension or call upon him to retire or resign, and on his refusingto do so, the officer may be compulsorily retired or removedfrom the service on pension or gratuity, if any admissible tohim. " ( 6 ) RULE 14 (2) requires that the Officer be informed of all the reportsadverse to him and be called upon to submit in writing his explanation anddefence where the Central Government and the Chief of Staff is satisfied thatthe trial of an Officer by Court Martial is inexpedient or impracticable. Rule 14 (5) requires that the final decision be taken by the Central Governmenton the recommendation of the Chief of the Army Staff. The recommendationof the Chief of Army Staff was considered by the Central Government and thecentral Government directed the removal of the respondent under Rule 14 asit was expedient in the interest of service to take such an action. The provisions of Rule 14 (2) are similar to the provisions of Clause (b) and Clause (c)of the 11nd Proviso to Sub-article (2) or Article 311 of the Constitution, with aslight difference. In Clause (b) of the lind Proviso to Sub-article (2) of Article311, the words used are "reasonably practicable" as against the use of theword practicable in Rule 14 (2 ). In Clause (b) of the lind Proviso to Sub-article (2) of Article311, the words used are "reasonably practicable" as against the use of theword practicable in Rule 14 (2 ). ( 7 ) BUT we are here concerned only with the requirement of satisfaction that it is inexpedient to hold the enquiry since the Central Governmenthas exercised the power as they were statisfied that the Court Martial was notexpedient. In Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, AIR 1985 SC Pg. 1416 (atpage 1483) the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has considered as towhat is meant by the word "expedient" in Clause (c) of the lind Proviso tosub-article (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court hasheld that the satisfaction of the President or the Governor is subjective satisfaction. "expediency involves matter of policy.-Satisfaction maybe arrived atas a result of secret information received by the government about the brewingdanger to the security of State and like matters. There may be other factorswhich may be required to be considered, weighed and balanced in order toreach the requisite satisfaction where holding an enquiry would be expedient ornot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The reasons for satisfaction reached by the President or Governor under clause (c) cannot be, therefore, required to be recorded in the orderof dismissal, removal or reduction in rank nor can they be made public. Thesupreme Court has also REFERRED TO to Article 33 of the Constitution whichempowers Parliament by law to determine to what extent any of the rightsconferred by Part III shall in their application inter alia to members of armedforces shall be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge oftheir duties and the maintenance of discipline amongst them. The Court hasthen commented. "thus, the discharge of their duties by the members ofthese forces and the maintenance of discipline amongst them is considered ofsuch vital importance to the country that in order to ensure this the Constitution has conferred power upon Parliament to restrict or abrogate any of thefundamental rights in their application to them. " ( 8 ) THE above observations are applicable on all fours to the interpretation of Rule 14 (2) empowering the Army authorities to dispense with thecourt Martial if they are satisfied that it is expedient to do so. " ( 8 ) THE above observations are applicable on all fours to the interpretation of Rule 14 (2) empowering the Army authorities to dispense with thecourt Martial if they are satisfied that it is expedient to do so. ( 9 ) IN para 141 of the Judgment the Supreme Court has quoted themeaning of the word expedient from several dictionaries. Some of themeanings are quite useful for our present purpose. They are "disadvantageous or suitable to the circumstances of the case, inadvisable, impolitic, fit,proper, efficiency in achieving a particular end. " ( 10 ) THE learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that objectivegrounds for coming to a conclusion that it was not expedient to hold the Courtmartial was not borne out by the record. It is true that the learned Singlejudge was seriously handicapped because in spite of the opportunitie. s theunion of India did not produce the original file. It is difficult to understandhow the government agencies do not realise the importance of the productionof the record before the Court. In many cases the production of the recordclarifies the confusion and dispels suspicion. Production of record, thus, helpsthegovernment. We deprecate this negligent attitude of the appellanthowever, the extracts of the original file are now made available to us and wehave the benefit of seeing them. The record shows that the GOC, Westerncommand has in July 1976 recommended action under Army Rule 14 to Armyheadquarters. Various instances of indiscipline by the respondent were considered and it was opined, "while individually these cases may not have beenserious, but cumulatively they unmistakably throw light into the basic traits ofthe officer and lead us to conclude that his further retention in the service isundesirable. It is, therefore, recommended that the officer s services beterminated under AR 14. " But no action was taken perhaps for giving furtheropportunity to the respondent to improve himself. In January 1977 the question was reviewed but again no action was taken as one disciplinary action inanother matter was already in progress. It appears that in spite of availingof the indulgence shown to him and to improve his behaviour the respondentcontinued with the same. In August, 1977 he wrote a letter to Shri Shantibhushan, the then Law Minister, under the heading "abusive use of powerand atrocities committed due, to misinterpretation of Defence Services Regulations (AAI)". The allegations in the petition to the Law Minister were thatgen. In August, 1977 he wrote a letter to Shri Shantibhushan, the then Law Minister, under the heading "abusive use of powerand atrocities committed due, to misinterpretation of Defence Services Regulations (AAI)". The allegations in the petition to the Law Minister were thatgen. T. N. Raina, Chief of Army. Staff was abusing and misusing the power inthe manner of Mrs. Indira Gandhi. The question as to whether the respondentwas fit enough to be maintained in the army and whether the action underrule 14 should be taken was again considered in depth. Apart from the saidletter addressed to the Law Minister Shri Shanti Bhushan, the entire record ofhis past convictions and acts of indiscipline were considered, both by the Chiefof the Army Staff and then by the Central Government. The Governmentcame to the conclusion that he was not a fit person to be retained in service ashe was not making any improvement in matters of discipline. They alsothought that it would be disadvantageous to discipline of the army to allowhis bad effect on them. Thus, the authorities had clear and objective materialbefore them and after considering the material at different times they ultimately came to the conclusion that it was inexpedient to try the respondentagain through Court Martial as the earlier five convictions had not broughtabout any desired improvement in the respondent. As held in Tulsi Ram Patelexpediency, involves matters of policy and the Courts will not lightly interferewith the policy matter, especially where it concerns with proper discharge ofduties and maintenance of discipline by the armed forces. The show-cause noticehas expressly REFERRED TO to the punishments awarded to the respondent as a resultof various disciplinary trials on other counts. The respondent was fully awareof those acts of indiscipline for which punishments were imposed on him. Itwas also made clear to him that those punishments have not produced anysalutary effect. The acts indulged in by him were highly derogatory to armydiscipline and he was not amenable to the code of army discipline and theconduct expected of the army officers. This was made clear to the respondentin the show-cause notice itself after stating some incidents. We have alreadynoted above the reply given by the respondent to the allegations in the show-cause notice. They look like lame excuses, but all the same the facts are notdenied. This was made clear to the respondentin the show-cause notice itself after stating some incidents. We have alreadynoted above the reply given by the respondent to the allegations in the show-cause notice. They look like lame excuses, but all the same the facts are notdenied. As regards the letter to the Law Minister Shri Shanti Bhushan, therespondent stated that he had not written the said. letter. He had submittedthat one Col. Pandey was responsible for writing that letter. The letterreads:- "from : Capt. A. K. Katoch,58/z, Young Road,dehradun Cantt. To : Shri SHANTI BSUSHAN,honourable Law Minister,ministry of Law,new DELHI. Abusive Use of Power and Atrocities Committed due to Misinterpretation ofdefence Services Regulations (RAl)I Sir,most honourably it is submitted that Army Authorities - have behavedagainst me in "indira GANDHI" manner in which power has been abusedand misused by incompetent persons by misinterpreting the Defence Servicesregulation. Needless to say that the DSR/rai has been amended numbersof times after 1947. I was Court Martialled for fabricated charges and theproceeding have exonerated me of 4 charges out of 5. Enough evidence existsin the proceedings of the Court Martial to prove following officers as liars and/or fabricators. (a) Lt. Col. P. C. Pandey. (b) Maj A. S. Negi. (e) Capt. Y. S. Tiagi. (d) Capt. A. D. Jayal. (e) Capt. S. P. Ale. 2. You Honour, I am enclosing an application addressed togeneral Officer Commanding 14 Inf. Div. and a reply receivedfrom Lt. Col. Harshpati, which evidently proves the "indiragandhi" attitude followed in the Armv. The application isself explanatory and so is the reply. Does the reply leave anydoubts to prove my point ? If nothing else should have at leastbeen granted an interview to redress my grievances. 3. Your Honour, as on today the proceedings of the Court havebeen forwarded for confirmation to higher auth. I am not in350 possession of any copy otherwise I would have forwarded it foryour perusal. A highlight of the proceedings is that a "toocautious" Commanding Officer now Brig. J. S. Rawat, during 1971 operations captured some enemy property. A portionof this property was later sold to Maj. B. S. Malik from theofficer Mess at a princely sum of Rs. 250/". Of course it doesnot include a revolver which the "too CAUTIOUS" Commanding Officer presented to Maj. B. S. Malik. J. S. Rawat, during 1971 operations captured some enemy property. A portionof this property was later sold to Maj. B. S. Malik from theofficer Mess at a princely sum of Rs. 250/". Of course it doesnot include a revolver which the "too CAUTIOUS" Commanding Officer presented to Maj. B. S. Malik. What is surprising how a "too CAUTIOUS" Commanding Officer so brandedby a study team from Army HQ was upgraded to become abrigadier in the "indira ARMY". 4. There was no charge, against me involving my integrity or moralcharacter, yet the Chief of Army Staff has ordered with holdingof my pay. The authovery well know that I am a marriedofficer with liabilities and responsibilities yet a cut has beenordered in my pay. Why so? Is it to prove that Gen. T. N. Raina also formed part of "indira CAUCUS". 5. Your honour, most humbly it is requested that suitable action betaken to check the truthfulness of every actions taken by meand correctness of the actions taken by Army Authorities. I willbe grateful if my impounded pay is refunded to me immediately* because I am facing financial crisis. To ease out my financialproblem a loan of Rs. 25,000. 00 also be granted to me from anysource possible, preferably at no interest. I am writing this privately for your honour s sympathetic consideration and suitable actions. Yours faithfully,sd/-A. K. Katochcapt. Date. 13 Aug. 77" ( 11 ) THERE is enough internal evidence in the letter as well as the otherpetitions to show that the letter has been written by the respondent. Therespondent has himself admitted in his writ petition that the had complainedof the high handed attitude of the army superiors to he Shah Commission. The Shah Commission was appointed during the Janata Government to lookinto the allegations of abuse of power and illegalities allegedly committed bymrs. Indira Gandhi. If the respondent had made complaints to the Shahcommission, the purpose of the complaints would be same as is stated in theletter to Shri Shanti Bhushan, the then Law Minister during the Janatagovernment. The purport of the letter. is that the Army Officers, includinggen. T. N. Raina, Chief of the Army Staff, were abusing and misusing thepowers like Mrs. Indira Gandhi. In paragraph 2 of the said letter to the Lawminister he has REFERRED TO to a reply received by him from Lt. Col. Harshpati tohis application. The purport of the letter. is that the Army Officers, includinggen. T. N. Raina, Chief of the Army Staff, were abusing and misusing thepowers like Mrs. Indira Gandhi. In paragraph 2 of the said letter to the Lawminister he has REFERRED TO to a reply received by him from Lt. Col. Harshpati tohis application. How can a third person like Col. Pandey get a copy of thereply written by Lt. Col. Harshpati to the respondent ? There is one curiousreference Brig Rawat, who is REFERRED TO to as a "too cautious" Commandingofficer. The Study Team from Army Headquarters had probably describedbrig. Rawat as a "too cautious" Commanding Officer after the 1971 was withpakistan. The respondent had made a grievance against the said Brig. J. S. Rawat in para 10 of the writ petition that he was unjustifiably awardenreprimand by Brig J. S. Rawat. The allegation is that the respondent refusedto oblige Brig. Rawat by not getting tree ballis from the Wood Contractor. On 4. 2. 1981 the respondent wrote a memorandum in reply to the letterinforming him about his disentitlement to pension and gratuity. In thatmemorandum he had REFERRED TO to Brig. J. S. Rawat as "too Cautious Officer". This is in the context of the further allegation against Brig. Rawat that heextorted cash and gold from Bangladeshis after the 1971 war. Considering thisinternal evidence, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the conclusion of thecentral Government that the letter to Shri Shanti Bhushan, the then Lawminister, was written by the respondent and by no other person. ( 12 ) HAVING considered the material on record, we are satisfied thatthe action of the Union of India to terminate the services of the respondentunder Army Rule 14 was legal and proper and no interference was called forfrom the Court. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and order of thelearned Single Judge and uphold the impugned show-cause notice and the termination order. The LPA is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.