The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has upheld disciplinary proceedings initiated against a woman Colonel from the Judge Advocate General’s Department (JAG) after a court of inquiry (COI) held her blameworthy for security lapses and other acts of impropriety at Yol Cantonment in Himachal Pradesh.

Based on the findings and recommendations of the COI, the General Officer Commanding 9 Corps had directed disciplinary action against the officer, Col Annu Dogra, for providing an unauthorised entry pass to a civilian, intentionally providing false identification to personnel on duty at entry gates as his sponsor to facilitate his entry into the military station on multiple occasions, improperly permitting him to stay overnight in the absence of her husband, making false statements regarding his earlier visits and overnight stay, making false accusations against the security set up and intentionally misleading an officer from the Corps of Military Police regarding his presence in one of her rooms.

Pursuant thereto, the applicant was attached to Headquarters 40 Artillery Division. The Division Commander suspended her from duty and extended the order of suspension from time to time.

In her petition before AFT, she averred that the COI’s convening authority did not appoint the COI’s presiding officer and members by name, which was a violation of the Army’s policy. The COI in this instance was convened by the Station Commander, Yol.

She also alleged that the issuance of the COI’s convening order was malafide, proper procedure for summoning some witnesses were not followed and that the COI was fed information by the higher authorities. Her husband also submitted complaints of sexual harassment and attempts to malign her reputation and character to higher authorities and National Commission for Women, on which she claimed no action was taken.

The tribunal’s bench, comprising Justice Sudhir Mittal and Lt Gen Ranbir Singh, held that in accordance with the relevant rules, there is no legal requirement of naming the presiding officer and members of a COI. The bench observed that the Station Commander could not have himself appointed the members because all officers in the military station are subject to directions of the Corps Headquarters and orders issued by the Corps Headquarters under the required rules had named the members.

The bench also termed the allegations of sexual harassment on the face of the record as palpably incorrect. “Merely because the applicant is a lady officer, it cannot be said that she was being sexually harassed or intimidated or that her character was being called into question.  The complaints did not require any action to be taken and this fact cannot lead to an inference of malafide intention,” the bench said.

The next step in the disciplinary process is framing of a tentative chargesheet, hearing of charge and recording of summary of evidence, which is a prelude to a possible trial by a general court martial. “However, we have been informed that much progress has not been made as the health of the petitioner has deteriorated. It appears that the petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings so as to bar trial by way of limitation,” the bench observed after finding no infirmity with the COI and declining to interfere with the disciplinary action.