Srinagar, August 7, KDC: Clarifying that General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF/BRO) personnel are subject to dual disciplinary control under both the Central Civil Services (CCS) Rules and the Army Act, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition filed by an Executive Engineer equivalent to the rank of Major, seeking to quash a disciplinary charge memorandum issued against him over illegal financial transactions.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the petition filed by Badavath Kishan, an officer serving with 18 RCC/Project Vijayak, who had challenged the Memorandum of Charges dated February 27, 2025, issued under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
The charge sheet alleged that while serving as Officer Commanding of 81 RCC at Kargil, the officer inappropriately received ₹4.50 lakh through cash and digital bank transfers into his Axis Bank and SBI accounts from CPL Mazdoor Alauddin Ansari in connection with labour recruitment during 2021–22, violating Rule 16(4)(i)(a) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Assailing the charge memo, the officer argued that the preliminary Court of Inquiry violated Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954, as he was not allowed to participate or cross-examine witnesses. He further contended that the charges were vague, based on surmises, and served with inordinate delay.
Rejecting the petitioner’s primary argument, Justice Sanjay Dhar cited Supreme Court rulings to hold that directly recruited GREF personnel are governed by both the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and provisions of the Army Act, 1950, for disciplinary purposes.
The Court explained that the disciplinary authority possesses full discretion to decide whether to proceed under penal provisions of the Army Act via Court Martial for grave military offences or under CCS Rules for administrative misconduct.
“Holding of Court of Inquiry against the petitioner was not even mandatory in the facts and circumstances of the present case having regard to the fact that the respondents have decided to proceed against the petitioner under the Rules of 1965 and not under the Army Act… Thus, even if Rule 180 of the Army Rules has not been adhered to, the same may not be fatal to the enquiry,” the Court held.
Examining the charge sheet, the Bench noted that it contained specific financial transaction details, bank account entries, and unique reference numbers, leaving no scope for vagueness.
Relying on the Apex Court ruling, the High Court reiterated that a Writ Court has extremely limited jurisdiction to interfere at the stage of framing charges unless the memo is contrary to law or lacking basic particulars.
“At this stage, the Court has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. It is only the disciplinary authority and the enquiry officer who have the jurisdiction to go into all these issues,” the Bench said.
Finding no merit in the grounds raised, the High Court dismissed the petition, vacated all interim orders, and cleared the way for the department to proceed with the disciplinary inquiry.
Advocates Tapas Das and Syed Faheem Indrabi appeared for the petitioner, while Deputy Advocate General Hakim Aman Ali represented the Union of India and BRO authorities. (KDC)
