Upholding ongoing court martial proceedings against a Colonel accused of corruption, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has held that communiques sent by Army Headquarters asking subordinate formations to investigate complaints cannot be considered as directions to convene a court of inquiry (CoI), for which the competent authority is different.The Army had ordered the trial of the Colonel from the Army Service Corps by a summary general court martial (SGCM) on the basis of the findings of a CoI convened by the General Officer Commanding, 3 Infantry Division after an anonymous complaint was received against him.The Colonel had averred before the tribunal that the CoI was without jurisdiction as it was ordered under the direction of the Additional Director General, Discipline and Vigilance at Army Headquarters and signed by a Colonel on behalf of the Adjutant General by a Colonel who had no authority to order Headquarters Northern Command to investigate the case.“We find the letter only highlights the major allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint and has requested Headquarters Northern Command to examine the matter and forward the comments duly approved by the competent authority,” the tribunal’s Chandigarh bench comprising Justice Sudhir Mittal and Lt Gen Ravindra Pal Singh observed in their order of March 20.“This is a routine and essential action to investigate allegations of grave violations in financial probity. The CoI was convened under the direction of GOC 3 Infantry Division, the competent authority,” the bench said.The bench also dismissed the appellant contentions that SGCM had grossly erred in rejecting his special plea to jurisdiction by an illegal and arbitrary order without fully considering the legal grounds raised by the appellant and ignoring factual position.He had also claimed that there were procedural errors during the proceedings as certain mandatory legal provisions such as Army Rules 22, 37, 177, 179 and 180 were not complied with, resulting in shortcomings in the COI’s convening orders, reassembly and subsequent proceedings.Terming the petition to be a poor attempt to derail the process of law relying on non-existing technical inconsistencies, the bench observed that the respondents have adequately established that the convening and reassembly orders, including the composition of the CoI, were all duly approved by the GOC 3 Infantry Division and neither were any rules during the pre-trial and trial proceedings violated.“Financial probity, especially in the Indian Army, is held at the highest pedestal. Any breach in discipline, especially on this account, needs to be firmly dealt with. In our considered opinion the disciplinary process warrants no intervention at this stage,” the bench ruled.