Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 84 (MAN)

L. Nirmala Singh v. Union of India

2022-05-24

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned order/letter dated 25.11.2021 issued by the fifth respondent and to stay the proceedings of fresh Court of Inquiry initiated vide Convening Order dated 25.2.2020 in respect of the petitioner's husband. 2. Briefly stated case of the petitioner is as follows:- The petitioner is the wife of a retired Brigadier of the Indian Army, namely Laiphrakpam Ibotombi Singh, who even after his retirement has been facing many unfortunate turn of events and grave injustice because of which, he is undergoing great turmoil mentally, physically and financially, which have led him to depression with psychotic features. A Court of Inquiry [for short, 'COI'] was ordered against her husband in June, 2012, immediately after her husband while posted as Deputy Director General (Discipline) Army Headquarters had undertaken certain unpleasant official disciplinary follow up actions against a few senior officers of Headquarters 3 Corps as per the official policy and directives of then Army Chief for a botched operations in Jorhat. As her husband had commanded a brigade under Eastern Command, immediately after change of Army Chief, taking advantage, the inquiry was ordered without any written complaints or records. The inquiry was completed in December, 2012 which was done in violations of mandatory statutory provisions. 2.1. The petitioner's husband filed Civil Appeal No.9223-9224 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Apex Court against the orders dated 6.2.2019 and 15.3.2019 passed in O.A.No.85 of 2013 by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby directing the disciplinary proceedings to be continued without examining substantial grounds raised by her husband with regard to bias, irregularities, tampering of evidence and deliberate violation of Army Rule 180 and 184(2). By the judgment dated 17.12.2019, the Hon'ble Apex Court disposed of the Civil Appeals by modifying the direction given by the Armed Forces Tribunal to process the disciplinary proceedings further through a duly constituted legal process by directing the COI to be conducted afresh, thereby quashing the earlier COI. 2.2. According to the petitioner, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 17.12.2019 has been misinterpreted by the military authorities by ordering a fresh inquiry. Against the legal positions stated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment, the military authorities on 25.8.2020 communicated to her husband that they have initiated a fresh COI in terms of the direction in the judgment dated 17.12.2019. 2.3. Against the legal positions stated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment, the military authorities on 25.8.2020 communicated to her husband that they have initiated a fresh COI in terms of the direction in the judgment dated 17.12.2019. 2.3. The effect of the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court to conduct the COI afresh would necessarily mean that the final proceedings dated 14.12.2012 of the previous COI directing disciplinary action to be initiated against her husband was set aside and all consequential order based on the previous COI such as attachment order, order dated 15.2.2013 imposing Discipline and Vigilance ban with effect from 14.12.2012 and order dated 24.4.2019 invoking Section 123 of Army Act with effect from 30.4.2019 become null and void. However, the military authorities continued to rely on the same to deny the commutation of pension and gratuity which her husband is entitled to, as he was superannuated from service on 30.4.2019. 2.4. Despite several representations made by her husband, the military authorities have not lifted the DV ban as well as well as the attachment order and also has not revoked the order under Section 123 of the Army Act and the authorities have also not released financial benefits entitled to her husband post his retirement in terms of commutation of pension, gratuity and release of all his other retiral benefits. 2.5. Due to inaction of the military authorities in not giving the benefits of commutation of pension, gratuity and other benefits to her husband who has served for about 36 years in the Indian Army, instruments for killing 52 Pakistanis while serving in Drass during operation Parakaram for which he was awarded with Yudh Seva Medal has been rendered helpless as her husband require regular medical treatment due to hypertension, diabetes and for depression with psychosis features, besides her daughter is suffering from medical condition 'lupus' for which treatment is required on daily basis. Instead, the authorities are linking release of entitled financial emoluments as ransom to fresh COI, which prove to be pre-decided opinion made by the authorities to somehow harass and punish her husband. 2.6. The petitioner's husband is suffering from depression with psychotic features and suicidal tendencies since January, 2021. Instead, the authorities are linking release of entitled financial emoluments as ransom to fresh COI, which prove to be pre-decided opinion made by the authorities to somehow harass and punish her husband. 2.6. The petitioner's husband is suffering from depression with psychotic features and suicidal tendencies since January, 2021. As such, vide letters dated 6.2.2021, 4.3.2021, 7.4.2021, 23.4.2021, 15.6.2021 and 20.7.2021, the military authorities have been regularly replied and updated with supporting medical documents to the summons issued by the officer assembling COI regarding the same. 2.7. On 17.8.2021, the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West through whom the Army authorities have issued summons was informed about the ongoing medical treatment undergone by her husband and he cannot be left alone without a family member as attendant. It was also informed about the request made by the petitioner for shifting the venue of the enquiry near to Imphal, earlier proposed by the military authorities. On 6.9.2021, the military authorities were informed by the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West, taking into consideration the health and mental condition of the petitioner's husband, for shifting the enquiry venue to Leimakhong, Manipur. 2.8. It is stated that the petitioner's husband who is presently suffering from depression with psychotic features is not in a mental state to avail the opportunities during the course of enquiry and therefore, the military authorities should permit her husband to be presented by a lawyer during the course of enquiry. On 17.9.2021, stating all these facts, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondent authorities. In response, the fifth respondent, by the impugned order/letter dated 25.11.2021 informed the petitioner that as per the dictum of the Apex Court, the inquiry is required to be conducted in a time bound manner for which the presence of the petitioner's husband is necessary. It was also informed that the change of location of COI from Bengdubi Military Station to Leimakhong, Manipur is not feasible and hence the request of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Further, it was informed that the request for representation by a lawyer at the COI cannot be acceded to in accordance with the instructions on the subject. Challenging the impugned order/letter dated 25.11.2021, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Further, it was informed that the request for representation by a lawyer at the COI cannot be acceded to in accordance with the instructions on the subject. Challenging the impugned order/letter dated 25.11.2021, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. The respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition, inter alia, stating that pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court, a fresh COI was ordered vide Headquarter 33 Corps convening order dated 25.2.2020 and Major General Arun Kumar Gupta was detailed as the Presiding Officer of the COI. Number of summons were served upon the petitioner's husband to appear before the COI, however, he never appeared citing health issues on account of Covid-19 infection. On 9.1.2021, the Presiding Officer offered that the COI was ready to proceed to Leimakhong, however, the petitioner's husband did not give any positive response to the offer citing health issues. The Presiding Officer of the said COI i.e. Major General Arun Kumar Gupta, stood posted out due to which the said COI had to be cancelled and a fresh COI was convened vide order dated 6.3.2021 in which the fifth respondent was detailed as the Presiding Officer. 4. It is stated that the fifth respondent issued almost 10 summons upon the petitioner's husband to appear before the COI, however, he has not attended. Since the petitioner's husband failed to appear before the COI, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West was approached for issuance of arrest warrant in order to ensure the presence of the petitioner's husband before the COI. After considering all facts, the Chief Judicial Magistrate issued warrant of arrest. On 15.11.2021, the petitioner's husband appeared before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West and gave an undertaking that he will appear before the COI at the designated time and date. Accordingly, he was let on bail on furnishing a surety of Rs.50,000/- and there was no pleading before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate citing any mental health issues and the undertaking recorded in the order dated 15.11.2021 had been given by the officer himself. 5. It is stated that on 17.8.2021, the petitioner submitted a representation requesting for shifting the venue of the COI to Leimakhong. The said representation was replied by the fifth respondent vide letter dated 15.9.2021 explaining that holding the COI at Leimakhong besides causing delay would also cause financial burden on the exchequer. 5. It is stated that on 17.8.2021, the petitioner submitted a representation requesting for shifting the venue of the COI to Leimakhong. The said representation was replied by the fifth respondent vide letter dated 15.9.2021 explaining that holding the COI at Leimakhong besides causing delay would also cause financial burden on the exchequer. Another representation dated 17.9.2021 was received from the petitioner reiterating the same issues as contained in the representation dated 17.8.2021. Immediately after sending the representation dated 17.9.2021, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.808 of 2021 and by the order dated 16.11.2021, this Court disposed of the said writ petition by directing the respondents to sympathetically consider the representation dated 17.9.2021. The representation of the petitioner dated 17.9.2021 was finally disposed of vide speaking order dated 25.11.2021 after sympathetic consideration and duly assuring the petitioner that all the health related requirements of the husband of the petitioner will be taken care of by the respondents. In spite of assurance, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 6. It is further stated that presently the matter is pending at the stage of COI itself which could not progress due to non-participation of the husband of the petitioner repeatedly citing ill-health issues, despite issuance of several summons and warrant of arrest. The delay in conduct of the COI is attributable to non-appearance of the husband of the petitioner before the COI. This delay shall be at the peril and on account of the husband of the petitioner in further disciplinary proceedings, if any, conducted pursuant to the COI and shall not come in the way of the respondents in any manner, whatsoever. It has been ordered by the Hon'ble Apex Court that fresh COI and further proceedings are to be expeditiously completed in the matter. Since the order impugned is a reasoned one, the petitioner has no right to maintain the writ petition and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. S. Biswajit, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the mental health condition of the petitioner's husband has become deteriorating and the Army authority was so adamant to start the COI outside Manipur without providing any assistance from legal expert, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 17.9.2021 to the respondent authorities. 7. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. S. Biswajit, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the mental health condition of the petitioner's husband has become deteriorating and the Army authority was so adamant to start the COI outside Manipur without providing any assistance from legal expert, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 17.9.2021 to the respondent authorities. Instead of considering the representations filed by the petitioner and her husband, the fifth respondent approached the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West to issue arrest warrant against the petitioner's husband by concealing the mental health conditions of the petitioner's husband only on the ground that he failed to appear before the COI despite repeated summons. The handing over of custody of the petitioner's husband to the military authorities through the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by means of arrest warrant would have caused further deterioration of the mental health of the petitioner's husband during the fragile stage of medical treatment of petitioner's husband. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that the authority completely neglected various documents related with the medical history of the petitioner's husband which clearly prove that he is not fit to appear before the COI for the time being. In W.P.(C) No.808 of 2021, this Court directed the respondents, particularly the fifth respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.9.2021 sympathetically and dispose of the same by issuing a speaking order in respect thereof within the time frame. The fifth respondent made a reply order impugned dated 25.11.2021 thereby disposing of the representation dated 17.9.2021 is quite contradictory to the direction of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.808 of 2021 dated 16.11.2021. 9. The learned counsel then submitted that on 2.12.2021 a summon was served asking the petitioner's husband to appear for COI in Bengdubi (WB) on 14.12.2021. Since the petitioner's husband mental health was not stable, the fifth respondent was informed by the petitioner about inability for him to appear for COI on 14.12.2021. Since the impugned order issued by the fifth respondent is not in terms of the order of this Court dated 16.11.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.808 of 2021, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to set aside the same, thereby staying the proceeding of the fresh COI. 10. Per contra, Mr. Since the impugned order issued by the fifth respondent is not in terms of the order of this Court dated 16.11.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.808 of 2021, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to set aside the same, thereby staying the proceeding of the fresh COI. 10. Per contra, Mr. Vijayanand Sharma, the Learned Sr.PCCG for the respondents submitted that in the speaking order dated 25.11.2021, a reasoned reply was given to the petitioner with respect to the prayer regarding the change of venue for COI, wherein the same was declined due to administrative and logistic difficulties. The respondent authorities has agreed to conduct COI in Leimakhong, Manipur despite many hardships. He would submit that as far as the prayer regarding representation of the legal counsel during the COI, the respondents have provided adequate reply in the speaking order dated 25.11.2021 itself. The COI in themselves is duty bound to ensure that the rights available to the petitioner are sufficiently provided as per Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954. 11. The learned counsel further submitted that insofar as the prayer regarding stay of the petitioner's husband at his own residence during the conduct of COI is concerned, the respondents have no objection. If the petitioner so requires assistance in terms of the accommodation and transportation shall willingly extended by the respondents during the period of conduct of COI proceedings at Limakhong Military Station. However, considering the health condition of the petitioner's husband, the daily travelling anticipated, the presence of a full-fledged military hospital and keeping in view the early completion of COI, this Court may direct the husband of the petitioner to relocate to Leimakhong Military Station. 12. Regarding the revocation of Army Act Section 123 and removal of DV ban, the learned counsel contended that the same has already been intimated to the petitioner through the impugned speaking order dated 25.11.2021. As per the existing records, neither the provisions of Army Act Section 123 nor DV ban are invoked against the husband of the petitioner. He would submit that the prayer regarding reimbursement of financial benefits in nature of commutation of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits before the commencement of fresh COI proceedings is concerned, the same can be claimed before the appropriate forum only and not before this Court. 13. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 13. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 14. The grievances of the petitioner are as under: (a) Permit the petitioner's husband to be represented by a learned counsel during the course of COI proceedings till he recovers from Paranoid Schizophrenia. (b) Permit the location of the COI be shifted in Manipur in any nearby military station nearer to the residence of the petitioner's husband or have the COI by video conferencing as being practiced in the Army under exceptional circumstances. (c) Permit the petitioner's husband to stay at his residence for better care and medication and also permit him, if necessary to appear, along with his learned counsel to commute to the COI venue on daily basis whenever the inquiry proceedings assemble, which was earlier agreed by the fifth respondent. (d) Early release of financial benefits entitled to petitioner's husband, post his retirement, in terms of commutation of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits before commencement of the fresh COI proceedings so as to ensure access to better medical treatment of the petitioner's husband, petitioner's daughter who is suffering from 'lupus', the petitioner herself suffering from asthma and diabetes, as right to life and medical treatment is a fundamental right. (e) Close the case by way of appropriate administrative action based on One Man inquiry recommendations so as to avoid prolonging the case further. (f) Hand over the investigation to some other agencies, other than Armed Forces, so as to facilitate immediate flawless investigations without invoking Army Rule 180 to the petitioner's husband so that he can be represented by a learned counsel till he recovers from Paranoid Schizophrenia. The practice is precedent in the Army as some cases pertaining to even serving personnel have been dealt by other agencies in the past. 15. According to the petitioner, she is the wife of a retired Brigadier of the Indian Army, who after retirement has been facing many unfortunate events and injustice because of which her husband is undergoing great turmoil mentally, physically and financially which have led him to depression with psychotic features. Owing to certain allegations and circumstances, the mental health conditions of her husband have deteriorated in the last few months despite medications. 16. Owing to certain allegations and circumstances, the mental health conditions of her husband have deteriorated in the last few months despite medications. 16. In the instant case, a COI came to be ordered in the month of January, 2012 against the petitioner's husband, as her husband while being posted as Deputy Director General (Discipline) Army Headquarters had undertaken certain unpleasant official disciplinary follow up actions against a few senior officers of Headquarters 3 Corps as per the official policy and directions of the then Army Chief for a botched operation in Jorhat. Since her husband had commanded a Brigade under Eastern Command, immediately after change of Army Chief and taking advantage thereof, an inquiry was ordered without any written complaint or record. According to the petitioner, the inquiry was completed in the month of December, 2012 which was done in violation of the mandatory provisions. 17. The petitioner's husband approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi by filing O.A.No.85 of 2013, wherein certain orders were passed whereby the Tribunal even after its finding that statutory provision has not been complied with by the military authorities at the time of holding COI directed the disciplinary proceedings to be continued without considering the grounds raised by her husband with regard to bias, irregularities, tempering of evidence and deliberate violation of the provisions of Army Rule 180 and 184(2). 18. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner's husband filed Civil Appeal Nos.9223-9224 of 2019 before the Apex Court and by the judgment dated 17.12.2019, the Apex Court modified the direction of the Tribunal to process the disciplinary proceedings further through a duly constituted legal process and directed the COI to be conducted afresh, thereby quashing the earlier COI. In compliance with the judgment of the Apex Court, the military authorities issued communication to the petitioner's husband informing him that they had initiated a fresh COI and the said communication was received by the petitioner's husband. 19. According to the petitioner, even after the previous COI directing disciplinary action to be initiated against her husband having been quashed, the military authorities continued to rely on the same to deny the commutation of pension and gratuity which her husband is entitled to as he had retired on 30.4.2019 from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 19. According to the petitioner, even after the previous COI directing disciplinary action to be initiated against her husband having been quashed, the military authorities continued to rely on the same to deny the commutation of pension and gratuity which her husband is entitled to as he had retired on 30.4.2019 from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Despite several representations, the military authorities have failed to lift the DV ban as well as the attachment order and to release the financial benefits entitled to by her husband post his retirement in terms of commutation of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits. According to the petitioner, the consequences of which her husband is prejudiced and presumed to be prima facie guilty. 20. Since the respondent authorities failed to consider the grievances expressed by the petitioner, she filed W.P.(C) No.808 of 2021 before this Court. After hearing both parties, by the order dated 16.11.2021, this Court passed the following order: '[10] When the instant writ petition is taken up for consideration, it has been submitted by Shri S.Biswajit Meitei, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the instant writ petition can be disposed of by passing an innocuous order and accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the direction that the respondents and in particular, the respondent No.5 shall sympathetically and dispose of the representation dated 17.09.2021 submitted by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by issuing a speaking order in respect thereof. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is directed that the proceedings of the fresh CoI shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the said representation for the end of justice.' 21. Pursuant to the direction of this Court passed in the aforesaid writ petition, the fifth respondent issued the impugned letter dated 25.11.2021 informing the petitioner as under: 1. Refer the following:- (a) Representation made by Smt L. Nirmala Singh wife of Brigadier U Singh, YSM (Retired) dated 17 September 2021. (b) Our letter No 04020/C of 1/L1/DV/AW-1 addressed to Smt L Nirmala Singh dated 15 Sep 2021 disposing of your request made vide letter dated 17 Aug 2021 received on 15 September 2021. Refer the following:- (a) Representation made by Smt L. Nirmala Singh wife of Brigadier U Singh, YSM (Retired) dated 17 September 2021. (b) Our letter No 04020/C of 1/L1/DV/AW-1 addressed to Smt L Nirmala Singh dated 15 Sep 2021 disposing of your request made vide letter dated 17 Aug 2021 received on 15 September 2021. (c) Order dated 16 Nov 2021 passed by Hon'ble High Court Manipur in WP(C) No.808/2021 titled Smt L. Nirmala Singh Vs UOI and others. 2. Reply to Paras 2 (a) and (c) of the representation. (a) This is to inform you that prior to receipt of the letter mentioned at Para 1 (a) and (b) above, the Presiding Officer of the Court of Inquiry had telephonically spoken to you. You were explained in detail, the importance of presence of Brigadier Lt Singh, YSM (Retired) in the instant inquiry and due assurance was given that all the concerns with respect to Brigadier LI Singh, YSM (Retired) regarding the health, administration, commutation etc will be catered for by this Headquarter. You had also raised a concern for taking care of your daughter to which you were assured that necessary administrative arrangements would be made for her too. (b) You had raised a concern that Brigadier LI Singh, YSM (Retired) may need medical attention during the Court of Inquiry. It is once again assured that Brigadier LI Singh, YSM (Retired) will be provided all necessary medical assistance at 158 Base Hospital, Bengdubi. There are specialist doctors including a psychiatrist available at 158 Base Hospital who will cater to any health condition in respect of Brigadier LI Singh, YSM (Retired). It is also for your information that besides 158 Base Hospital, there are many reputed Hospitals in Siliguri and hence no issues will be faced with respect to the treatment of Brigadier LI Singh, YSM (Retired) North Bengal Medical College and Hospital as well as many other reputed hospitals are also located at Siliguri for any additional advanced medical assistance, if required. (c) Your request for change of location of Court of Inquiry from Bengdubi Military Station to Leimakhong (Manipur) was also sympathetically considered. (c) Your request for change of location of Court of Inquiry from Bengdubi Military Station to Leimakhong (Manipur) was also sympathetically considered. It is informed that it is not feasible to shift the location of Court of Inquiry since the said inquiry involves move of almost 36 Army service personnel and civilian witnesses from across India The present location of the Court of Inquiry is well connected by all three modes of transportation that is rail, road & air for enabling quick movement of witnesses Shifting the location of Court of Inquiry to Leimakhong besides resulting in delay in the Court of Inquiry proceedings will also put unnecessary financial burden on the exchequer Moreover the medical facilities available in Siliguri can take care of any health related eventuality arising during the course of Court of Inquiry it may be appreciated that the Court of Inquiry under the Army Act 1950 as per dims of Hon ble Supreme Court, is required to be concluded in a time bound manner for which presence of Brigadier Li Singh. YSM (Retired) is necessary at Bengdubi Military Station. (d) It is further informed that as per the undertaking given by Brigadier LI Singh YSM (Retired) before Ld CJM Imphal West Manipur, as recorded in the older dated 15 Nov 2021 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case Number 207 of 2021, Brigadier L Singh YSM (Retired) has submitted that he is ready to appear before the Court of Inquiry on a date fixed by the Court of Inquiry, if insisted by the authority After duly considering the health condition of Brigadier LI Singh YSM (Retired) Ld CJM in the said order recalled and cancelled the warrant of arrest and he has been let on bail on his furnishing a PR bond of Rs 50,000/ only and on the condition that he shall appear before the Court of Inquiry on a date fixed by the Court of Inquiry. (e) In view of the foregoing it is informed that change of location of Court of Inquiry from Bengdubi Military Station to Leimakhong (Manipur) is not feasible and hence your request in this regard cannot be accepted. Reply to Para 2 (b) of the representation. (e) In view of the foregoing it is informed that change of location of Court of Inquiry from Bengdubi Military Station to Leimakhong (Manipur) is not feasible and hence your request in this regard cannot be accepted. Reply to Para 2 (b) of the representation. The Court of Inquiry is an investigative proceeding conducted to gather factual matters of evidence on a particular matter circumstance it is not a trial, its deliberations are non adversarial and do not result in the conviction of an accused person. By its very investigative intent, its proceedings are closed to participation or attendance by persons not called by the court to be present. Therefore, the request for representation by a lawyer at the Court of Inquiry cannot be acceded to in accordance with the instructions on the subject. 4. Reply to Para 2 (d) of the representation. As per the records presently neither The provisions of Army Act Section 123 nor DV Ban are invoked against Brigadier LI Singh, YSM (Retired).' 22. As could be seen from the impugned order/letter dated 25.11.2021, this Court finds that pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in the Civil Appeal Nos.9223-9224 of 2019, dated 17.12.2019, the respondent authorities agreed to conduct COI at Leimakhong, Manipur. Insofar as the prayer of the petitioner to represent a legal counsel during COI, the fifth respondent has rightly stated that the COI is only an initial/preliminary evidence collecting mechanism and is not in any manner an adversarial system and the COI in themselves is duty bound to ensure that the rights available to the petitioner are sufficiently provided as per Army Rule 180. Regarding stay at his own residence during COI, the fifth respondent has no objection. In addition, the fifth respondent stated that if the petitioner so requires assistance in terms of accommodation and transportation shall willingly extended by the respondents during the period of conduct of COI proceedings at Leimakhong Military Station. However, considering the health condition of the petitioner's husband, the daily travelling anticipated, the presence of a full fledged military hospital and keeping in view the early completion of the COI, this Court may direct the husband of the petitioner to relocate to Leimakhong Military Station. However, considering the health condition of the petitioner's husband, the daily travelling anticipated, the presence of a full fledged military hospital and keeping in view the early completion of the COI, this Court may direct the husband of the petitioner to relocate to Leimakhong Military Station. As far as the prayer for revoking of Army Act Section 123 and removal of DV ban, the fifth respondent stated that as per the existing records that presently neither the provisions of Army Act Section 123 nor DV ban are invoked against the husband of the petitioner. Regarding reimbursement of financial benefits in the nature of commutation of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits before the commencement of fresh COI is concerned, the fifth respondent stated that the appropriate jurisdiction to claim the said benefits is the Armed Forces Tribunal as per Section 2 read with Section 3 (o) of the Armed Forces Act, 2007. 23. On a perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clearly held that the COI shall be held against the petitioner's husband and the COI be completed expeditiously without any delay. However, the petitioner and her husband is dragging the conduction of inquiry proceedings, which was initiated on 25.2.2020 by filing representation after representation and writ petition after writ petition showing health issues of the petitioner's husband. In the instant case, the respondent authorities themselves agreed to shift the enquiry place from Bengdubi Military Station to Leimakhong, Manipur, which is the place of the residence of the petitioner's husband. Though 36 Army personnel/witnesses involved in the inquiry proceedings and the inquiry place Bengdubi Military Station though connected by all three modes of transportation i.e. rail, road and air for enabling quick movement of witnesses, taking into consideration the grievance expressed by the petitioner, the respondents agreed to shift the inquiry place at Leimakhong, Manipur. 24. Since the COI is only an initial/preliminary evidence collecting mechanism and is not in any manner adversarial system, the fifth respondent has rightly declined the prayer of the petitioner seeking assistance of a lawyer during the COI. No law or any judgment of the Courts permit representation of the delinquent officer through a legal counsel during the COI. 25. 24. Since the COI is only an initial/preliminary evidence collecting mechanism and is not in any manner adversarial system, the fifth respondent has rightly declined the prayer of the petitioner seeking assistance of a lawyer during the COI. No law or any judgment of the Courts permit representation of the delinquent officer through a legal counsel during the COI. 25. At this stage, it is to be pointed out that the COI in themselves is duty bound to ensure that the rights available to the petitioner's husband are sufficiently provided as per Army Rule 180, as the said provision contemplates full opportunity afforded to delinquent person of being present throughout the inquiry and of making any statement, and of giving any evidence he may wish to make or give, and of cross-examining any witness whose evidence in his opinion, affects his character or military reputation and producing any witnesses in defence of his character of military reputation. The Presiding Officer of the Court shall take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that any such person so affected and not previously notified receives notice and fully understands his rights, under the said Rule. 26. In view of a clear provision contemplated, there is no question of seeking assistance of legal counsel on behalf of the petitioner's husband during COI. Therefore, as rightly stated by the respondent authorities the COI is an investigative proceeding conducted to gather factual matters of evidence on a particular matter/circumstance. It is not a trial, its deliberations are non-adversarial and do not result in the conviction of an accused person. By its very investigative intent, its proceedings are closed to participation or attendance by persons not called by the Court to be present. Therefore, the request for representation by a lawyer at the COI cannot be acceded to and has rightly rejected the said prayer of the petitioner while considering the representation of the petitioner dated 17.9.2021. However, it is made clear that the COI in themselves duty bound to inquire that the rights available to the petitioner's husband as per Rule 180 has been given. 27. However, it is made clear that the COI in themselves duty bound to inquire that the rights available to the petitioner's husband as per Rule 180 has been given. 27. For all the reasons stated above, this Court finds any infirmity in the impugned order/letter dated 25.11.2021 and on the other hand, while considering the representation of the petitioner dated 17.9.2021, the fifth respondent has taken note of all relevant facts and also the legal position and has rightly issued the impugned order/letter. The only modification in the impugned letter is the shifting of inquiry place from Bengdubi Military Station to Leimakhong, Manipur, as agreed by the respondents. 28. In the result, (a) The writ petition is partly allowed. (b) The respondents are directed to shift the inquiry place from Bengdubi Military Station, West Bengal to Leimakhong, Manipur (as agreed by them). (c) The prayer in respect of representation of a legal counsel during the COI proceedings stands dismissed. (d) The respondent authorities are directed not to invoke the provisions of Section 123 of the Army Act nor DV ban at present. (e) The petitioner's husband is directed to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal as per Section 2 read with Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Act, 2007 for reimbursement of financial benefits in nature of commutation of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits, if he so chooses. (f) The petitioner's husband is directed to give his fullest co-operation in the COI for early completion of the inquiry. (g) If the petitioner's husband failed to co-operate the COI proceedings, then the Presiding Officer of the COI is at liberty to proceed the inquiry further in accordance with law. (h) The Presiding Officer of the COI is directed to complete the inquiry within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on day-to-day basis, for which the petitioner as well as the petitioner's husband are directed to co-operate with the COI. (i) No costs.