The High Court was then impressed by contents of the letter dated 21st May, 2004, wherein the respondents has asked for permission to engage a private counsel. The High Court completely glossed over the plea taken by the appellants that this document (Annexure 24) was not a part of the Court Martial Proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be made the basis to grant any relief to the respondent much less to doubt the bona fides of the officials involved in the conduct of Court Martial Proceeding. On the other hand, the record of Court Martial Proceedings not only revealed that the respondent voluntarily admitted his guilt to both the charges with full understanding and knowing the consequence therefore but in spite of opportunity given to him to reconsider his stand, he did not change his confession. As a matter of fact, reference to letter dated 21st May, 2004 has been made for the first time only in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the respondent. No tangible explanation is forthcoming as to what prevented the respondent from referring to this communication in the first place in the Court Martial Proceedings or at least in the appeal preferred by him under Section 161 of the Act to the Competent Authority. Notably, such case was not made out even in the original writ petition for reasons best known to the respondent. Obviously, taking that plea in the rejoinder affidavit for the first time was with a view to confuse the issue so as to resile from the voluntary confession already given in the Court Martial Proceedings. That cannot be countenanced and such a belated plea ought not to be entertained by the high Court and that too in a casual manner and especially when the appellants in further affidavit had mentioned the circumstances in support of the assertion that the document relied by the respondent is a forged document. The respondent was called upon to produce the original, which he never did. Neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench analysed the plea of the appellants in this behalf and yet granted relief to the respondent by directing remand of the Court Martial Proceedings in spite of a finding that the said document was not part of the Court martial Proceedings that has resulted in awarding premium to the respondent who had approached the Court with unclean hands and to give opportunity to resile from the voluntary confession made by him, which fact was justly recorded in the Court Martial Proceedings by the concerned officials whose integrity is impeccable. The High Court should not have entertained the plea of the respondent that he was pressurized to give confession in absence of disclosure of names of those officials and who had no opportunity to counter the allegations made against them. Hence, this reason weighed with the High Court must also fail. The last reason weighed with the High Court is also devoid of substance. Submit