RAVI S. DHAVAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS special appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 31 January 1996 on Writ petition No. 20174 of 1986, Laxman Giri. Ex. Havaldar No. 9212544 v. Chief of the Army Staff, army Headquarters, New Delhi and others. The petitioner Laxman Giri, a non-commissioned officer found. himself facing charges before a summary court martial for being drunk after a bara Khana and thereafter while proceeding from the mess to the lines having grabbed the wife of Sepoy Raghav Singh and placing one hand on her mouth and with the other fondled her breast. The incident saw immediate action from the Officer Commanding, 15 Mahar Regiment to which the petitioner Laxman Giri, Havaldar was attached. The matter was investigated, summary of evidence was recorded, the petitioner was charged, tried and was sentenced to (a) reduction in rank, (b) suffer rigorous imprisonment for nine months which sentence would be carried out by confinement in civil prison and (c) dismissal from service. ( 2 ) APPARENTLY, the submissions as were made on behalf of the petitioner were that for want of procedure in conformity with Section 120 of the Army Act, 1950, the entire proceedings were bad. At the very outset, this Court places on record that the learned Judge was in error in the judgment. On record of the writ petition lies a supplementary affidavit, affirmed on 5 March, 1995, which read with the record produced shows that there was full compliance of Section 120 of the Army Act read with Rule 130 and the reference, in fact, had been made as the Army Act, rules and regulations so required. The matter had been processed on a reference being made to the Judge Advocate General Department, before trial. The proceedings had been signed by colonel. Deputy Judge Advocate General, Headquarters 10 Corps. The army had taken a decision that the matter calls for an immediate attention and, thus, without delay, the summary of evidence had been recorded. In the circumstances, this aspect of the record was not noticed by the learned Judge and to that extent the judgment is in error. ( 3 ) BESIDES, one needs to keep in mind that there are four kinds of court martial : (a) general court-martial ; (b) district court-martial; (c) summary general court-martial ; and (d) summary courts-martial. Section 108 of the Army Act, 1950. ( 3 ) BESIDES, one needs to keep in mind that there are four kinds of court martial : (a) general court-martial ; (b) district court-martial; (c) summary general court-martial ; and (d) summary courts-martial. Section 108 of the Army Act, 1950. The present case is of summary court-martial which can be held by the Commanding Officer of any corps, department or detachment of the regular army. Section 116 of the Army Act. 1950. In the circumstances of the present case, trial by summary court -martia! was not out of place nor bad for lack of jurisdiction. The satisfaction whether there is or "there is no grave reason for immediate action" and whether "detriment to discipline" will be affected, an aspect mentioned in Section 120. will be of the Officer concerned. Maliciousness, mala fides and violation of the rule of natural justice is not a circumstance in issue in the present case. ( 4 ) BESIDES, as soon as the proceedings were initiated ultimately to culminate in a verdict by summary court-martial, the petitioner on 18 November. 1985 had a statement recorded that whatever he had done. was under the influence of liquor and he was prepared to accept any punishment and in future he would not drink or do any such act. What act the petitioner did as a consequence of being drunk stands recorded in the proceeding. The proceedings were yet to culminate but had begun on a complaint of Raghav Singh, a Sepoy, making allegations under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complaint was, to the effect, that the petitioner, laxman Girl, a non-commissioned officer, had assaulted or used criminal force with his wife with intent to outrage her modesty. As a consequence of this complaint, the summary of evidence was recorded on 18 November, 1985. The petitioner. Laxman Giri, elected to cross-examine Smt. Sanjari Devi, wife of Sepoy. Raghav Singh. First, the statement of Smt. Sanjari Devi was recorded who stated that on Diwali day, i. e. , on 12 November, 1985. there was a Bara Khana in the unit where all families had attended. After the Bara Khana was over, the wives with their husbands proceeded to the family lines. Enroute. an unknown individual grabbed her from the rear and with one hand closed her mouth and with the other hand pressed her breast. She was carrying her two year old baby. After the Bara Khana was over, the wives with their husbands proceeded to the family lines. Enroute. an unknown individual grabbed her from the rear and with one hand closed her mouth and with the other hand pressed her breast. She was carrying her two year old baby. She cried for help to her husband who was walking ahead of her. In the cross-examination, the petitioner asked questions. It would be best to reproduce the questions and answers : "q. When I caught you which hand did I use to close your mouth? a. With the right hand. Q. When this happened where were your hands? a. I was holding my 2 year old baby with both the hands. Q. What did you do when I tried to molest you? a. I held my child with one hand and pushed you away with the other. " ( 5 ) IF this was not enough, in February, 1986 the petitioner attempted to compromise with the husband of Smt. Sanjari Devi. In this compromise, recorded in Hindi, the incident is accepted. One glaring feature of this compromise is that the petitioner, Laxman Girl, was a noncommissioned officer. He was seeking a compromise with a subordinate, an ordinary soldier. Raghav Singh whose wife he had molested, was only a Sepoy. ( 6 ) THE balance which remains on record is of two aspects (a) a drunken non-commissioned officer and (b) molestation of a soldiers wife. Within the military, regimentation calls for stricter standards in viewing or make eyes on the wives of colleagues. Even incivility is treated as statutory misconduct. There is a code of ethics in the military. An officer including a Junior commissioned Officer or Warrant Officer should they behave so as to present a conduct unbecoming of a gentleman, may be convicted by court martial or cashiered. This is so provided in Section 45 of the Army Act, 1950. ( 7 ) WHAT the petitioner, Laxman Girt, as Havaldar, did to the wife of a soldier, is worse than a conduct unbecoming of a gentleman. The less said the better. Lustful male chauvinist passions violating the privacy of a woman, does not call for any interference by the High Court. ( 8 ) THE Judgment on the writ petition is, in any case, in error and, thus, set aside. The special appeal is allowed. The less said the better. Lustful male chauvinist passions violating the privacy of a woman, does not call for any interference by the High Court. ( 8 ) THE Judgment on the writ petition is, in any case, in error and, thus, set aside. The special appeal is allowed. The writ petition is dismissed with costs throughout. .