The Indian Army has initiated steps to terminate the service of a Major accused of having improper relationships with the wives of two fellow officers, choosing administrative action over a court-martial. The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has refused to stay the proceedings, directing the officer to respond to the Army's show-cause notice while ordering authorities to provide him with key inquiry documents.
Principal Bench of the AFT at New Delhi, chaired by Justice Rajendra Menon along with Lieutenant General CP Mohanty, issued the order on October 14, 2026, reported The Indian Express. Major approached the tribunal against the order of termination, alleging procedural irregularities in the investigation.
The show-cause notice issued by the Chief of Army Staff on August 10 under Army Rules 19 and 14 requested the officer to state why his service should not be terminated without a court-martial. The Army reportedly considered a court-martial “inexpedient due to attendant circumstances”.
The tribunal declined to halt the administrative proceedings but directed the Army to provide the findings of the Court of Inquiry and the proceedings of the hearing of the charge. It asked the Major to raise his objections in his reply to the notice.
Complaint Alleged Relationships With Four Women
The incident surfaced in August 2023 when the Major's then wife filed a complaint at the Additional Directorate General of Discipline and Vigilance at Army headquarters.
The complaint alleged adultery, substance abuse and neglect, and claimed that the officer had relationships with four women, including the wives of two serving Army officers.
In October 2023, Headquarters 55 (I) Mechanised Brigade convened a Court of Inquiry to investigate allegations of conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman. The inquiry reportedly examined claims described as “stealing the affection of brother officers' wives”.
The Army subsequently conducted further inquiries. In March 2025, it framed a tentative chargesheet under Sections 45 and 63 of the Army Act, followed by the recording of evidence and an additional summary of evidence.
According to the Indian Express report, the allegations against the Major also included installing prohibited applications on a personal digital device and misleading a board tasked with handling his electronic devices.
Major Alleges Violations During Army Inquiry
Challenging the proposed termination, the officer argued before the tribunal that the investigation had violated Army Rule 180, which provides safeguards to personnel whose character or military reputation may be affected by an inquiry.
He claimed that the women named in the allegations and their husbands were not summoned or examined despite his repeated requests. He also alleged procedural irregularities in the seizure of his mobile phones, laptop and pen drives, as well as the search of his married accommodation.
The Major maintained that the proposed administrative action could not stand because it relied on inquiry and evidence proceedings that he alleged were flawed.
He also sought copies of the Court of Inquiry findings and opinion under Army Rule 184, along with the hearing-of-charge proceedings under Army Rule 22. He told the tribunal that these documents had not been provided to him.
Former Wife Withdrew Complaint After Divorce
The Major also cited the withdrawal of the complaint by his former wife following their divorce.
According to his application, the couple obtained a mutual divorce on March 30, 2026, through an order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Anantnag, Jammu and Kashmir.
As part of their settlement, his former wife reportedly withdrew the complaint filed in August 2023. The compromise agreement stated that the complaint had been lodged during a period of marital discord and that she did not have conclusive grounds for it. She also undertook to make a statement before the authorities.
The officer argued that the withdrawal weakened the basis for the proposed termination of his service. However, the withdrawal of a complaint does not, by itself, determine the outcome of separate military proceedings.
What Happens Next?
The AFT has allowed the Army's administrative proceedings to continue while directing it to supply the documents sought by the Major. He must submit his objections in response to the show-cause notice.
The tribunal's refusal to grant interim relief is not a final decision on whether the allegations are established or whether the Major's service should be terminated. The proposed dismissal remains subject to the Army's administrative process and the officer's response.
The allegations against the Major have not been established by a final adjudication in the proceedings described above.