Colonel faces court martial for ‘illicit relationship’ with Naib Subedar’s wife

The officer also approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) on two occasions seeking relief for the action being taken against him by the Army and pleading that the action was time-barred, but the tribunal had dismissed his pleas.

The Colonel was commissioned into the Indian Army in June 1990 and was posted as Secretary General Equestrian Federation of India (EFI) during 2018-19.

As per details available, the Naib Subedar was working with the Colonel at the Army Headquarter and had certain issues with regard to his eloping with a woman whom he married subsequently. The Colonel is said to have mediated between the Naib Subedar and his father-in-law who had lodged an FIR against him and settled the dispute between the Naib Subedar and his wife’s parents.

Subsequently, between September and November 2019, the Naib Subedar is believed to have discovered the existence of an illicit relationship of his wife with the Colonel and lodged a complaint with documents, including WhatsApp messages, CDs, etc. Complaints were made to the Prime Minister, the Army Wives’ Welfare Association (AWWA), Chief of Army Staff, and GOC Delhi Area.

The GOC Delhi Area ordered a Court of Inquiry (COI) into the matter in January 2020 and based on the prima facie findings recorded in the COI, Summary of Evidence was held in April 2021. In January 2023, the trial of the appellant by way of General Court Martial (GCM) commenced.

In the meantime, the Colonel moved the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the proceedings have been initiated beyond the period of limitation prescribed for taking action under Section 122 of the Army Act, after his retirement, by invoking the special provisions available to the Competent Authority under Section 123 of the Army Act.

The Colonel also argued that the provisions of Section 123 have been invoked in an illegal manner, he is not aware of the complaint registered against him and for what reasons the proceedings are being held.

However, the AFT rejected this argument saying the proceedings are being held in pursuance to a Court of Inquiry already conducted where the allegations are available. “The applicant had participated in the Court of Inquiry and it’s a case where, prima facie, there seems to be suppression of fact even with regard to unconditional apology submitted by the applicant on August 20, 2020,” the AFT said.