Chandigarh, October 16, 2026: The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has declined to stay administrative termination proceedings against an Indian Army Major accused of having improper relationships with the wives of two Colonels and engaging in other acts of misconduct.
The tribunal’s decision came on October 14, after the officer challenged a show-cause notice issued by the Army in August 2026 proposing the termination of his services.
The Army had initiated administrative action against the Major after concluding that a trial by General Court Martial was inexpedient due to the circumstances of the case. However, the authorities determined that his continued retention in military service was undesirable because of the alleged misconduct.
The AFT bench, comprising Justice Rajendra Menon and Lieutenant General C.P. Mohanty, declined to intervene at this stage and directed the officer to raise his objections in his formal reply to the show-cause notice.
The tribunal also instructed the Army authorities to provide the Major with copies of the Court of Inquiry (COI) findings and the proceedings of the hearing of charge, as requested by him.
Investigation Initiated After Wife’s Complaint
According to a report by The Tribune, the controversy began when the Major’s wife submitted a complaint to Army authorities regarding his conduct.
Following the complaint, the Army convened a Court of Inquiry to investigate the allegations. Three additional Courts of Inquiry were subsequently conducted to examine accusations involving improper relationships with fellow officers’ wives and conduct unbecoming of an Army officer.
Based on the inquiry findings, Headquarters 11 Corps, based in Jalandhar, directed disciplinary proceedings against the Major, initially contemplating trial by court martial.
The inquiries reportedly found the officer blameworthy on several counts, including maintaining improper relationships with the wives of two Colonels, installing prohibited applications on his personal digital device, and misleading a board of officers responsible for examining his electronic devices.
Major Challenges Proceedings, Alleges Procedural Violations
The Major challenged the administrative action before the Armed Forces Tribunal, alleging serious procedural irregularities during the investigations.
His counsel, Major Anand Kumar (Retd), argued that the officer’s statutory rights had been violated during the Courts of Inquiry and the recording of the Summary of Evidence (SOE), adversely affecting his ability to defend himself.
The counsel contended that neither the two Colonels nor their wives had been summoned for examination during the proceedings, despite their central role in the allegations.
He further stated that the Major’s wife had initiated separate proceedings before a family court, where a compromise was subsequently reached. Following the settlement, she reportedly withdrew the complaint she had submitted to the Army authorities.
The defence also questioned the validity of the show-cause notice, arguing that the underlying inquiry proceedings were procedurally defective.
According to the counsel, the notice failed to adequately explain why a court martial could not be conducted. He also alleged that the Army had not provided the officer with documents necessary for preparing his defence.
Tribunal Directs Officer to Respond to Show-Cause Notice
After considering the submissions, the AFT declined to grant an interim stay on the administrative proceedings.
Instead, the tribunal directed the Major to present his grievances and objections before the competent Army authorities through his reply to the show-cause notice.
The tribunal also ordered the authorities to furnish the requested inquiry findings and hearing-of-charge proceedings to the officer.
The decision allows the Army’s administrative process to continue, while giving the Major an opportunity to contest the allegations and procedural issues before a final decision is taken on his service.
The officer’s services have not been terminated merely by the tribunal’s ruling, and the allegations remain subject to the ongoing administrative process.
Source: The Tribune, report by Vijay Mohan, October 14, 2026.
