Service law is not only about what punishment is given or what benefit is denied. Very often, the real question is how the decision was taken, who acted, when they acted, and whether they had the power to act at all. Five decisions reported between 12 October 2026 show this clearly.
Two of them concern the Armed Forces directly: a Navy court martial and an Army censure. The other three, from the Madras, Madhya Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Courts, involve a revenue official, a State armed police officer and a BSF jawan. Their reasoning applies equally to soldiers, paramilitary personnel and civilian Government employees.
| # | Court / Forum | Case | Core question | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kerala High Court | Union of India v. Santosh Karwade | Can the investigating officer prosecute the court martial? | Yes, no bar in Navy Regulations |
| 2 | Armed Forces Tribunal | Lt Col (Corps of Engineers) v. Union of India | Can a censure stand after 16 years of delay? | No, censure quashed |
| 3 | Madras High Court | Secretary, Revenue Dept. v. S. Menaka | Can maternity leave block promotion? | No, promotion ordered |
| 4 | Madhya Pradesh High Court | Kanhailal Samadhiya v. State of MP | Can the borrowing department act after repatriation? | No, chargesheet set aside |
| 5 | J&K and Ladakh High Court | Khursheed Ahmad Khan v. Commandant, 50 Bn BSF | Was the petition filed in the right court? | No, returned for want of jurisdiction |
1. Who May Prosecute a Court Martial: Union of India v. Santosh Karwade
Court: Kerala High Court, Division Bench (Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John)
Case No.: W.A. Nos. 218 of 2026 and 2980 of 2025
Decided: 23 September 2026
Citation: 2026:KER:71832; 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 520
Background
A Navy member with 31 years of service was being tried by a Court Martial under the Navy Act, 1957. One charge, framed under Section 420 IPC read with Section 77(2) of the Navy Act, alleged that he had dishonestly induced an officer to transfer about Rs 1,10,595. After eight witnesses had been examined, he learnt that the prosecutor was the same officer who had investigated the case. He went to the High Court, saying that one person acting as investigator, prosecutor and possible witness made the trial unfair under Article 21. He also challenged Regulation 178(3) of the Navy (Discipline and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations, 1965, which makes the prosecutor a competent witness. In 2025, a Single Judge (2025:KER:63148) upheld Regulation 178(3) but held that the investigating officer should not be appointed as prosecutor under Regulation 163(1). Both sides appealed.
The decision
- No prohibition in the rules. Regulation 163(1) only requires a “suitable person”. An investigating officer, who knows the case well, can be such a person.
- Courts martial have their own procedure. Following Ajmer Singh v. Union of India (1987), the Court said the ordinary Code of Criminal Procedure does not govern a court martial.
- Article 33. Parliament may restrict fundamental rights of Armed Forces members for discipline, and rules made under the Navy Act share that protection.
- The prosecutor does not decide. The Court observed that “the sole duty of the prosecutor is to place the evidence before the court-martial.” Guilt and sentence are for the court martial.
The Union’s appeal was allowed and the court martial can proceed.
Practical lessons
- A bare objection to the dual role is now unlikely to succeed in naval courts martial, and similar arguments under the Army Act and Air Force Act may meet the same answer.
- The accused keeps the right to cross-examine the prosecutor if he or she testifies. That cross-examination is where gaps in the investigation can be exposed.
- Fair-trial challenges have better chances where actual prejudice is shown: bias, withheld documents, or evidence kept back.
- Every objection should be raised before the court martial and recorded, so it is available in an appeal before the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Source: LiveLaw report
2. Delay That Destroys a Case: AFT Quashes Censure on a Lieutenant Colonel
Forum: Armed Forces Tribunal (Justice Rajendra Menon and Lt Gen C.P. Mohanty)
Applicant: Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers, commissioned 1995 (name and OA number not published)
Reported: The Tribune, 30 September 2026
Background
The officer served as Garrison Engineer, Pune, from August 2005 to November 2007. In July 2011, four years after he moved, a Court of Inquiry was convened into ammunition sheds at the Ammunition Depot, Dehu Road, allegedly not built to drawings and specifications. In July 2013, a second Court of Inquiry was started while the first was still pending. It concluded in May 2015 and blamed the officer for overpayments, poor supervision and loss of stores. He suffered a heart attack in June 2018, which he linked to the long stress. A show-cause notice followed in December 2020, and a censure was awarded in May 2021.
The decision
- The original lapse came from a calculation error, with no personal fault of the officer.
- The JAG Branch’s own advice recorded no malafide intent and said the lapses were mainly due to limited resources and weak command and control.
- The Tribunal noted that for a lapse 12 years old the officer had been made to suffer for a long time facing two inquiries. The long, unexplained delay was enough to vitiate the whole action.
- The censure was quashed. The officer is to be considered for promotion to Colonel (Selection Grade) with his original batch, failing which for Colonel (Time Scale), with consequential benefits.
Practical lessons
- Time matters. Authorities must act within a reasonable period, and unexplained delay is a ground of challenge in itself.
- The record can help the officer. Findings and legal advice that show no bad intention are relevant when testing whether a censure is justified.
- A censure is not a “minor” matter. Because it can affect promotion boards, setting it aside can lead to fresh consideration with the original batch.
Note: This part is based on the newspaper report; the full order was not publicly available at the time of writing.
Source: The Tribune report
3. Maternity Leave and Promotion: Secretary, Revenue Department v. S. Menaka
Court: Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Sakthivel)
Case No.: W.A.(MD) Nos. 1385 and 1386 of 2026
Decided: 29 September 2026
Citation: 2026:MHC:4001
Background
The employee joined as a directly recruited Revenue Assistant in 2008. While working as Firka Revenue Inspector, she took six months of maternity leave from November 2013 to May 2014. On return, the department transferred her, and she ended up 3 months and 13 days short of the two-year tenure needed in that post. She was promoted as Deputy Tahsildar in 2015, but her later promotion to Tahsildar was refused for this shortfall while her juniors were promoted. Her request for relaxation was rejected.
The decision
- Maternity leave cannot be used to the detriment of a mother’s professional growth or promotion.
- The State’s own 2010 circular required such employees to be posted so they could complete the tenure. The shortfall was caused by the department, and it could not rely on its own failure.
- The Court did not lay down a blanket rule, but said departments can relax the condition or promote conditionally while the employee completes it.
- The State was directed to promote her as Tahsildar within 12 weeks, with benefits from the date her juniors were promoted.
Practical lessons
Women officers and personnel in the Armed Forces, CAPFs and civil services often face posting, course or tenure conditions for promotion. Where maternity leave caused the gap, and especially where the employer then made it harder to fill, this judgment supports a request for relaxation or conditional promotion.
Source: Madras High Court judgment (PDF)
4. Power Ends With Deputation: Kanhailal Samadhiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court (Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Case No.: WP No. 19947 of 2026
Decided: 30 September 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 395
Background
A platoon commander of the Special Armed Force was sent on deputation to the Special Task Force (STF) in August 2019 and returned to his parent department in February 2020. In May 2025, five years after he had left, the STF issued him a chargesheet about his conduct during the deputation, and in June 2026 it appointed an inquiry officer.
The decision
- Under Rule 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, disciplinary power comes from the employer and employee relationship.
- Once that relationship ends on repatriation, the borrowing department has no authority to take action. Only the parent department can act.
- The Court rejected the argument that the STF posting was only an internal posting and not deputation.
- The chargesheet and the appointment of the inquiry officer were set aside.
Practical lessons
Personnel of the Armed Forces and CAPFs are often sent on deputation to other organisations. If a chargesheet arrives from an organisation you have already left, the first question is whether that authority still has power over you. The specific rules will differ from service to service, but this jurisdictional question should always be checked.
Source: LiveLaw report
5. Choosing the Right Court: Khursheed Ahmad Khan v. Commandant, 50 Bn BSF
Court: High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh (Justice Rajnesh Oswal)
Decided: 1 October 2026
Background
A BSF jawan enrolled in 1998 was given permission in 2018 to keep a beard, on condition that it was kept neat. On 16 June 2023, the permission was withdrawn for alleged violation. The same day he applied for voluntary retirement, which was accepted at once. His later request to withdraw the application was refused, and on 5 July 2023 he was told to draw pension and not resume duty. He claimed he had been forced to retire.
The decision
The High Court did not examine whether the retirement was forced. It found that the application was made, and the order passed, at Tura in Meghalaya. Since no part of the cause of action arose in Jammu and Kashmir, the Court had no territorial jurisdiction under Article 226. The petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the proper court.
Practical lessons
- Under Article 226(2), a High Court can hear a case only if the cause of action arose wholly or partly within its territory.
- In Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India (June 2026), the Supreme Court held that CAPF members may approach the Delhi High Court in service matters, because the Union of India and the force headquarters are in Delhi.
- A wrong choice of forum can cost months or years, especially in matters where delay itself may later be held against the petitioner.
Source: SSBCrack report
The Common Thread: Process Decides Outcomes
Read together, these five decisions give a simple checklist for anyone facing disciplinary or administrative action:
- Who is acting? Does that authority still have power over you (Samadhiya)? Is the role it plays allowed by the rules (Karwade)?
- When are they acting? Has there been long, unexplained delay (AFT censure case)?
- Why are they acting? Is the reason something the employer itself caused, such as a tenure gap after maternity leave (Menaka)?
- Where should you go? Is the court or tribunal you approach the right one (Khursheed Ahmad Khan)?
Not every case goes in the employee’s favour. The Karwade decision shows that courts will uphold the special procedures of military law where the rules allow them. But where authorities act late, act without power, or rely on their own lapses, courts and tribunals have been willing to intervene.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the officer who investigated my case also prosecute me at a court martial?
Under the Navy Regulations, yes. In Union of India v. Santosh Karwade (Kerala High Court, 23 September 2026), the Division Bench held there is no bar, because the prosecutor only places evidence before the court martial, which decides guilt and sentence. You can still cross-examine the prosecutor if he or she gives evidence.
Can a censure be challenged because of delay?
Yes. In a case reported on 30 September 2026, the Armed Forces Tribunal quashed a censure on a Lieutenant Colonel because the Army took about 16 years and two Courts of Inquiry to act on a lapse, without explaining the delay.
Can maternity leave be a reason to deny promotion?
No. In S. Menaka (Madras High Court, 29 September 2026), the Court held that maternity leave cannot be used against a woman employee’s promotion, especially where the department itself prevented her from completing a required tenure.
Can my deputation unit start disciplinary action after I have returned to my parent unit?
According to the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kanhailal Samadhiya (30 September 2026), no. Once you are repatriated, only the parent department has disciplinary power over you.
Which High Court should a CAPF member approach?
The High Court where the cause of action arose, wholly or partly. In Baksish Ahmad (June 2026), the Supreme Court held that CAPF members can also approach the Delhi High Court in service matters because the Union of India and force headquarters are located in Delhi. Filing in a court with no connection to the dispute can lead to dismissal, as happened in the BSF case decided on 1 October 2026.
Disclaimer: This article is general information based on judgments and published reports available at the time of writing. It is not legal advice and does not create an advocate-client relationship.
About the Author: Wg Cdr Ajit Kakkar (Retd.), Advocate, Ajit Kakkar and Associates, New Delhi. Areas of practice: service law for the Army, Navy, Air Force, CAPFs and civilian Government employees before the Supreme Court of India, High Courts, the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Contact
Ajit Kakkar and Associates
A-2/211, Golf Course Road, Sector-17, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075
WhatsApp: +91-9958006409
Call / WhatsApp: +91-9266744601
Call / WhatsApp: +91-9990006409
Email: ajitkakkar@ajitkakkar.com
Office hours: Monday to Saturday, 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM
