Daijiworld Media Network – New Delhi

New Delhi, Jan 6: The Indian Army last month suspended an infantry commanding officer attached to the Rajputana Rifles Regimental Centre in New Delhi over alleged irregularities, with disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under various provisions of the Army Act.

Colonel Ashish Singh Mehta, who was serving as the commanding officer of the 16th Battalion of the Jat Regiment under the 16 Reorganised Army Plains Infantry Division (RAPIDs) at Sri Ganganagar in Rajasthan, is facing 12 charges. Of these, ten charges have been framed under Section 63 of the Army Act, which deals with acts prejudicial to good order and military discipline, while two charges fall under Section 45, relating to conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman.

The charges are linked to an alleged attempt by the officer to shield a jawan of his unit who was under investigation by the Delhi Area Provost Unit.

The suspension order was issued by Brigadier Raman Sharma, Commandant of the Rajputana Rifles Regimental Centre, where Col Mehta is currently attached. The action was taken in accordance with directions issued by the General Officer Commanding (GOC) Delhi Area on May 1, 2025, and subsequent directions of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command, dated August 28, 2025.

According to information available, the Commandant of the Regimental Centre conducted the hearing of charges against Col Mehta on December 5, 2025, during which a summary of evidence was recorded.

The suspension order noted that, considering the gravity of the alleged offences, the character and conduct of Col Mehta as an officer had been called into question. Exercising powers under Paragraph 349 of the Regulations for the Army, 1987 (Revised Edition), the officer was placed under suspension with effect from December 12, 2025, for a period of 90 days. The order stated that the suspension would be reviewed after 90 days, subject to progress in the case.

Sources said that Col Mehta has submitted a representation to Army authorities challenging the suspension, seeking its immediate withdrawal on the grounds that it violates the Suspension Policy, 2006. He has also sought certified copies of the court of inquiry proceedings and all file notings that led to the issuance of the chargesheet.

The officer has further requested that the hearing of charges held on December 5 be declared vitiated, alleging violation of Army Rule 22. He has also sought directions for a fresh and independent re-examination of the court of inquiry, claiming that the existing proceedings suffer from fundamental defects and are based on presumptions rather than admissible evidence.