Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Judgment

1. This writ petition assails order dated 19 September 2025, passed by the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal1, dismissing OA 2850/2025.

2. The conspectus of the controversy being limited, no detailed allusion to facts is necessary.

3. Based on certain allegations against the petitioner, a Court of Inquiry2 was constituted. Consequent on the findings of the COI, a decision was taken that, in view of the nature of the allegations against 1 “AFT”, hereinafter 2 “COI”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:08.12.2025 19:14:12 W.P.(C) 16294/2025 the petitioner and the confidentiality of the issues involved, administrative action be taken to terminate his services. The petitioner was, therefore, issued a show cause notice dated 23 September 2024, proposing to dismiss the petitioner from service following the findings of the COI and giving him an opportunity to show cause thereagainst under Rule 16(4)3 of the Air Force Rules, 1969.

5. The petitioner filed his response to the show cause notice. Instead of allowing the show cause notice to be adjudicated, the petitioner moved the AFT by way of OA 2850/2025. The prayer clause in the OA read thus: “In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased: (a) To quash the findings and recommendations of of COI conducted in pursuance of convening orders dated 10.01.2024 and 10.04.2024 as being violative of Rule 156 of Air Force Rules, 1969;

16. Dismissal or removal of officers for misconduct.— (1) An officer may be dismissed or removed from service for misconduct by the Central Government but before doing so and subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) he shall be given an opportunity to show cause against such action. (2) Where the dismissal or removal of an officer is proposed on ground of misconduct which has led to his conviction by a criminal court, or where the Central Government is satisfied that for reasons to be recorded in writing, it is not expedient or reasonably practicable to do so, it shall not be necessary to give an opportunity to the officer of showing cause against his dismissal or removal. (3) Where an officer has been convicted by a criminal court and the Central Government, after examining the judgment of the criminal court in his case and considering the recommendation about him of the Chief of the Air Staff, is of opinion that further retention of such officer in the service is undesirable that Government may dismiss or remove such officer from the service. (4) In any case not falling under sub-rule (3), when the Chief of the Air Staff after considering the reports on an officer's misconduct, is of opinion that the trial of the officer by a court-martial is inexpedient or impracticable but the further retention of the officer in the service is undesirable, he shall so inform the officer and subject to the provisions of sub-rule (5) furnish to the officer all reports adverse to him calling upon him to submit in writing within a reasonable period to be specified, his explanation in defence and any reasons which he may wish to put forward against his dismissal or removal. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:08.12.2025 19:14:12 W.P.(C) 16294/2025 (b) To quash the show cause notice dated 23.09.2024 issued by the Chief of Air Staff proposing to dismiss the Applicant while dispensing with the requirement of convening the General Court Marital under Rule 16 of Air Force Rules, 1969; AND (c) Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble Tribunal considers fair and proper to grant in the interest of justice.”

6. The AFT has, by order dated 19 September 2025, declined to interfere in the matter.

7. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition before this Court.

8. We have heard Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Akhil Mittal, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents, at some length.

9. Mr. Chhibber submits that there has been fatal violation of Rule 156(2)4 of the Air Force Rules during the course of proceedings in the COI and that, therefore, the findings of the COI were of no legal consequence. Inasmuch as the said findings constituted the basis of the show cause notice and the proposal, voiced in the show cause notice, to dismiss the petitioner from service, he submits that a clear case for setting aside the show cause notice as well as the findings of the COI were made out and that the Tribunal erred in refusing to interfere. 4 (2) Save in the case of a prisoner of war who is still absent, whenever any inquiry affects the character or service reputation of a person subject to the Act, full opportunity must be afforded to such person of being present throughout the inquiry and of making any statements and of giving any evidence he may wish to make or give, and of cross-examining and witness whose evidence, in his opinion, affects his character or service reputation, and producing any witnesses in defence of his character or service reputation. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:08.12.2025 19:14:12 W.P.(C) 16294/2025

10. As against this, Mr. Chhibber has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in UOI v. EX. No.3192684 W. SEP. Virendra Kumar5 and UOI v. Sanjay Jethi6.

11. The judgment in Virendra Kumar, to our view, actually militates against the stand that Mr. Chhibber seeks to espouse. In the said case, a COI was held, followed by a Court Martial and, after the Court Martial had returned a verdict against the respondent, Virendra Kumar before the Supreme Court, the matter was carried to the AFT. The AFT ruled in favour of Virendra Kumar, against which the Union of India approached the Supreme Court.

12. One of the grounds on which Virendra Kumar was granted relief was that there was a breach of Rule 1807 of the Army Rules, 1954, during the course of the COI. The Supreme Court has ruled, in its judgment, that, no plea of violation of Rule 180 having been taken at the stage of recording of the statement of witnesses, framing of charge, recording of summary of evidence or during the Court Martial proceedings, it was not open to Virendra Kumar to raise the ground of non-compliance of Rule 180 after the final verdict of the Court Martial have been returned. This makes it clear that the grounds of procedural