AFT Refuses Stay on Army Major’s Termination Over Alleged Affairs With Colonels’ Wives

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has refused to stay administrative termination proceedings against an Indian Army Major accused of misconduct, including alleged improper relationships with the wives of two Colonels. The tribunal’s order, passed on October 14, allows the Army’s action to move forward while the officer responds to a show-cause notice issued in August 2026.

The case arose after the Army concluded that a trial by General Court Martial was not feasible in the circumstances, but decided that the Major’s continued retention in service was undesirable in view of the allegations. The officer then approached the AFT, seeking to halt the proceedings that could lead to the termination of his service.

A bench comprising Justice Rajendra Menon and Lieutenant General C.P. Mohanty declined to intervene at the interim stage. Instead, the tribunal said the Major should place his objections before the competent Army authorities in his formal reply to the show-cause notice. It also directed the Army to give him copies of the Court of Inquiry (COI) findings and the proceedings of the hearing of charge, as he had requested.

Complaint Triggered Multiple Inquiries

According to The Tribune, the matter began after the Major’s wife complained to Army authorities about his conduct. That complaint led to a Court of Inquiry, followed by three more Courts of Inquiry that examined allegations of improper relationships with fellow officers’ wives and conduct unbecoming of an Army officer.

On the basis of these inquiry findings, Headquarters 11 Corps in Jalandhar ordered disciplinary proceedings and initially considered a court martial. The inquiries reportedly found the officer blameworthy on multiple 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 that had examined his electronic devices.

The administrative route was reportedly adopted after the Army determined that a court martial would be inexpedient, even as it held that the officer should not remain in service because of the alleged misconduct.

Major Alleges Procedural Violations

Challenging the action before the tribunal, the Major argued that the investigation and subsequent proceedings suffered from serious procedural defects. His counsel, Major Anand Kumar (Retd), submitted that the officer’s statutory rights had been violated during the Courts of Inquiry and during the recording of the Summary of Evidence (SOE), weakening his ability to defend himself.

The defence also argued that neither the two Colonels nor their wives had been examined during the proceedings, despite being central to the allegations. Counsel further told the tribunal that the Major’s wife had separately initiated proceedings before a family court, where a compromise was reached, after which she reportedly withdrew the complaint she had earlier made to the Army.

The challenge also questioned the validity of the show-cause notice itself. The defence contended that the notice did not adequately explain why a court martial could not be held and alleged that the Army had withheld documents needed for preparing the officer’s reply.

Tribunal Allows Army Process to Continue

After hearing the submissions, the AFT declined to grant an interim stay on the administrative termination proceedings. The tribunal instead left it to the officer to raise all grievances and objections through his response to the show-cause notice before the Army authorities.

By directing the Army to furnish the COI findings and hearing-of-charge proceedings, the tribunal ensured that the officer would have access to the material he said was necessary for his defence. At the same time, the order allows the administrative process to continue without the proceedings being frozen at this stage.

The tribunal’s ruling does not amount to termination of the Major’s service. Any final action will depend on the ongoing process and the Army’s consideration of his response to the notice.

Source: The Tribune, report by Vijay Mohan, October 14, 2026.