The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) on Wednesday declined to stay administrative proceedings against a Major who had been issued a show-cause notice for termination of his services for allegedly having illicit relations with wives of other officers.The Army had issued a show-cause notice to the Major in August 2026 for administrative termination of services after holding that that a trial by general court martial was “inexpedient due to attendant circumstances”, but his further retention in service was not desirable due to misconduct on his part. He had moved AFT against the notice on grounds of procedural infirmities.Disposing of the application filed by the Major, the tribunal’s bench, comprising Justice Rajendra Menon and Lt Gen CP Mohanty, on October 14 directed that the officer should raise his grievances in his reply to the notice which is required to be submitted to the authorities concerned. The bench also directed the Army authorities to supply the officer a copy of the findings of the court of inquiry (COI) along with a copy of the proceedings of the hearing of charge as sought by him.Based on a complaint submitted to the Army authorities by the officer’s wife over his behaviour, the Army had convened a COI, followed by three additional COIs to investigate the matter of “stealing the affection of brother officers’ wives” and conduct unbecoming that of an officer.Based upon the findings of COIs, disciplinary action, entailing trial by a court martial was directed against the officer by Jalandhar-based Headquarters 11 Corps. He was found blameworthy for having improper relationships with the wives of two Colonels, installing banned applications on his personal digital device and misleading the board of officers tasked to handle his digital devices.The officer’s counsel, Maj Anand Kumar (retd), when contacted, said that during the COIs and recording the summary of evidence (SOE), the officer’s statutory rights were violated causing prejudice to his defence.He said that during the COI and SOE proceedings, the wives of the officers and the officers themselves were not summoned for examination. Further, the wife of the accused officer had also filed cases in the family court wherein a compromise was arrived at and she later withdrew the complainant made to the Army.The counsel also contended that since the COI and SOE were vitiated, the show-cause notice not only became illegal, but also did not explain why a trial by court martial could not be conducted. Further, the officer has not supplied copies of documents to which he was legally entitled to.