Nagaresh, J.

1. The petitioner, who is in the rank of Squadron Leader in the Indian Air Force, is before this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5 order dated 25.02.2026 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi by which the Tribunal has refused to interfere with Court Marshal proceedings at an interlocutory stage.

2. The petitioner is a certified Adventure and Sea Survival Instructor qualified in Scuba Diving, Sailing, Kayaking, Open-water Swimming, Watercraft Operations, Wet Winching, Survival Dinghy Training, Heli-borne Water Rescue and Emergency First Response. He was posted to IAF Aqua Adventure Nodal Centre in the year 2021.

3. In the year 2025, Flt. Lt. Hemalatha filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). The petitioner was served with a charge sheet. On the basis of the report submitted by the ICC, Summary of Evidence was initiated on 12.08.2025. The petitioner filed Ext.P1 OA No.253/2025 in the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Regional Bench, Kochi. The OA was dismissed as per Ext.P5 order dated 25.02.2026 on the ground that the OA is premature. Consequently, the General Court Marshal is scheduled to be assembled with effect from 26.03.2026.

4. The petitioner states that Ext.P5 order of the AFT is illegal. The petitioner states that the initiation of disciplinary action is premature and before the expiry of statutory appeal period from the date of receipt of ICC proceedings. The charge sheet is in excess of ICC findings. Charges 2, 3, 4 and 5 were never the subject of ICC enquiry. One Flt. Lt. Anjali Mann was both an ICC member and PW7 in summary evidence. She is an interested witness.

5. Non-furnishing of enquiry report to the delinquent before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusion, vitiates the entire proceedings. Out of the 14 defence witnesses cited by the petitioner, 6 witnesses were curtailed without any justification. 16 out of 56 cross- examination questions were disallowed. The laptop and mobile phone of the petitioner were seized and are in the custody of the respondents. These gadgets contain material pieces of evidence which would be helpful in defence of the petitioner's case. Withholding of mobile phone of the petitioner amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to defend his case.

6. The petitioner further submitted that during the pendency of ICC, an anonymous complaint was received which was also subjected to enquiry. Anonymous complaints cannot be made basis of disciplinary proceedings. In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have interfered in the Court Marshal proceedings and give justice to the petitioner.

7. The observations made by the AFT in Ext.P5 order to the effect that charges are established against the petitioner would prejudice the General Court Marshal. In the facts of the case, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the ICC report is vitiated and void ab initio and all the subsequent proceedings based on the same charge sheet and all proceedings under Rule 24 of the Air Force Rules including the Summary of Evidence are void and illegal.

8. On behalf of respondents 1 to 5, the Deputy Solicitor General of India filed a statement in defence. Respondents 1 to 5 submitted that while an ICC proceeding was pending, an anonymous complaint of sexual harassment was received. After completion of ICC proceedings, the said complainant, who is an NCC cadet, revealed her name and informed that she was not keen on revealing her personal details and is not willing to be present during internal committee. Therefore, her complaint was not taken into consideration in the Internal Committee.

9. Subsequently, the said complainant / NCC cadet went to the office of the Commanding Officer revealing her identity and reiterated the complaint. During the Summary of Evidence, she appeared before the officer and adduced evidence. The petitioner was given opportunity to cross- examine.

10. As per the original prosecution witness list, Flt. Lt. Anjali Mann was not a prosecution witness. She was later included as a witness under Rule 24(4) of the Air Force Rules. The petitioner did not raise any grievance in this regard earlier.

11. The petitioner's mobile phone was seized as it was brought to a sensitive and restricted military area within the Head Quarters building. The petitioner is a serving officer of the Indian Air Force and he is bound to adhere to all regulations, security policies and administrative instructions. Ongoing disciplinary proceedings cannot be a ground to violate rules affecting the security of the Force.

12. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned DSGI representing the respondents.

13. The five charges framed against the petitioner consist of sexual harassment and other criminal offences. The Internal Complaints Committee has submitted their report which implicates the petitioner. The argument of the petitioner that the charge sheet in the General Court Marshal is in excess of ICC findings is unsustainable. A General Court Marshal can charge an employee based on ICC findings as well as other misconducts which came to the notice of the authorities.

14. The proceedings against the petitioner are under the Air Force Rules. The proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 24 contemplate Hearing of Charge, Summary of Evidence and Court Marshal proceedings. During the Hearing of Charge under Rule 24(1), witnesses are heard by the Commanding Officer in the presence of the accused with liberty to the accused to cross-examine and to call any witness and make any statement in defence.

15. Thereafter, during the Summary of Evidence under Rule 24(4) to 24(9), on the Commanding Officer arriving at a conclusion that the charge ought to be proceeded with, the case is adjourned for the purpose of having the evidence reduced to writing, with right of cross-examination by the accused. The Court Marshal proceedings commences only thereafter.

16. During a Court Marshal, evidence is led again on oath or affirmation. It is therefore evident that the petitioner will be getting every opportunity to examine documents, cross- examine witnesses and to adduce defence evidence.

17. The petitioner would submit that all the documents sought for by the petitioner were not provided to him and a number of defence witnesses were curtailed. According to the respondents, the petitioner has been asking for documents which are not at all having any relevance to the charges framed. Certain witnesses sought for by the petitioner were disallowed as summoning those witnesses was with ulterior motive. We are of the view that the legality of supply / non-supply of documents/witnesses is a matter to be looked into by the General Court Marshal. It is not open to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the Court Marshal even before it has commenced.

18. As regards a member of the ICC turning into a witness against the petitioner, the said issue is also a matter which can be considered by the General Court Marshal. We have no reason to believe that the evidentiary value of the ICC report and the testimony of the ICC member will not be properly weighed by the Court Marshal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the AFT rightly refused to interfere with the Court Marshal proceedings at an interlocutory stage. Ext.P5 order therefore cannot be found fault with.

                   The writ petition is hence dismissed making it clear that any observations contained in Ext.P5 order shall not in any manner affect the outcome of the Court Marshal proceedings.