The Indian Army is pursuing administrative termination of a Major accused of having extramarital relationships with the wives of two fellow officers, opting to proceed without a court-martial.
The officer was issued a show-cause notice on August 10 under Army Rules 19 and 14, asking him to explain why his service should not be terminated through administrative action. The notice stated that the circumstances made a court-martial inexpedient.
Armed Forces Tribunal Declines To Stay Proceedings
The Major approached the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) in New Delhi, seeking to stop the proceedings. However, the tribunal declined to grant interim relief.
On October 14, a bench comprising Justice Rajendra Menon and Lieutenant General CP Mohanty directed the officer to raise his objections in his response to the show-cause notice. At the same time, it instructed the Army to provide him with the findings of the Court of Inquiry and the proceedings of the hearing of charge, both of which he had sought.
Complaint By Former Wife Triggered Inquiry
The matter dates back to August 2023, when the officer’s then-wife approached the Additional Directorate General of Discipline and Vigilance at Army headquarters with allegations of adultery, substance abuse and neglect.
She further alleged that the Major had relationships with four women, including the wives of two serving Army officers.
In October 2023, Headquarters 55 (I) Mechanised Brigade initiated a Court of Inquiry into alleged conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman. The inquiry covered the allegations concerning the relationships with fellow officers’ wives, and further investigations followed.
Major Alleges Procedural Violations
The officer has challenged the inquiry process, claiming the Army violated Army Rule 180, which provides safeguards to personnel whose character or military reputation may be affected by an investigation. According to the Major, the women named in the allegations and their husbands were neither summoned nor examined, despite his repeated requests.
He has also raised concerns over alleged procedural lapses involving the seizure of his electronic devices, including mobile phones, a laptop and pen drives, as well as the search of his married accommodation.
Army Opts For Administrative Termination
In March 2025, the Army prepared a tentative chargesheet under Sections 45 and 63 of the Army Act. It subsequently compiled a summary of evidence and an additional summary of evidence.
The Major again sought the examination of the women mentioned in the allegations. The Army later issued the show-cause notice proposing termination of his service through administrative proceedings rather than a court-martial.
In his plea before the tribunal, the officer argued that the proposed action was legally unsustainable because it relied on inquiry findings and evidence proceedings that he claims were procedurally flawed.
He also sought copies of the inquiry findings and opinion under Army Rule 184, along with the hearing-of-charge proceedings under Army Rule 22, stating that these documents had not been provided to him.
Former Wife Withdraws Complaint After Divorce
The Major informed the tribunal that his marriage ended in a mutual divorce on March 30, 2026, following an order by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Anantnag, Jammu and Kashmir.
According to his application, the settlement included the withdrawal of his former wife’s August 2023 complaint. The agreement reportedly records her statement that she had not intended to file the complaint and had done so during a difficult period in the marriage, without having undeniable grounds for the allegations. She also agreed to provide a statement to the authorities.
The officer argued that the withdrawal further undermined the justification for terminating his service.
Tribunal Directs Army To Share Documents
The tribunal declined to stop the administrative proceedings, directing the Major to submit his objections to the show-cause notice. It also ordered the Army to provide the inquiry findings and hearing-of-charge records he had requested.
The administrative action remains separate from the tribunal’s decision on interim relief. The allegations against the officer have not been established through a court-martial or final adjudication in the proceedings described in his application.
